Apple trial defense: A guilty verdict would send chills across Internet industry NEW YORK - Apple lawyers on Thursday closed their arguments in a federal antitrust trial with fierce warnings that a guilty verdict would sends chills across the Internet industry. After three weeks defending Apple against Justice Department charges that it led an e-books price-fixing conspiracy, the company's attorney said Apple acted legally when it aggressively pursued business deals with publishers. "The government is taking perfectly sensible business agreements to infer sinister conduct," Apple attorney Orin Snyder of Gibson Dunn said in his closing remarks at U.S. District Court in Manhattan. "If Apple is found liable . . . that precedent will send shudders throughout the business community," he said. Judge Denise Cote will determine a final judgment on the suit against Apple and major publishers. The publishers have settled with the government and agreed to $122 million in damages to states that had joined the federal suit. The court said judges typically take about two months to issue a trial opinion. Apple has much to lose if the ruling goes against the company, some experts say. Aside from damages, Cote has wide latitude to put restrictions on future business practices. After Microsoft settled its antitrust cast with the Justice Department a dozen years ago, it had to open its campus to auditors, who were stationed in its Redmond, Wash., offices to ensure proper remedies were carried out. Apple has vowed to appeal any loss. Chief executive Tim Cook said Apple did not settle on principle because it rejects allegations it was the "ringleader" of a conspiracy to raise e-book prices. In closing arguments, Snyder outlined these points: ●Apple was an important new competitor in a market dominated by Amazon.com. Publishers were not allowing Amazon to offer bestsellers and new releases for its Kindle e-reader for $9.99, Amazon's price cap. Apple began to offer those books for $3 to $5 more, but consumers were still better off, the defense argued. "The prices on these books in Kindle were infinite . . . because they were not available," Snyder said. ●Apple was not a ringleader of a conspiracy because Barnes and Noble and Google were pushing similar pricing deals with publishers about the same time, if not earlier. The Justice Department has focused on Apple's and publishers" shift to an agency model, where publishers set prices. ●The appearance of frantic, coordinated efforts in six weeks of December 2009 and January 2010 represent legitimate business tactics. Apple said there was no proof it coordinated an illegal scheme with five publishers. Justice attorneys will give final remarks Thursday afternoon.