Three weeks after Apple was declared responsible for leading a conspiracy to raise e-book prices, the Department of Justice (DOJ) today submitted a proposed remedy to prevent the company from fixing prices and discriminating against competitors such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

Apple should not be able to "discriminate against rival e-books apps and may not agree with any other e-book retailer to fix retail e-book prices," the proposal (PDF) says. The specific remedies would, among other things, make it easier for iPhone and iPad users to buy books for use on Amazon's Kindle and Barnes & Noble's Nook apps.

Those apps don't include a way for users to purchase books today, largely because if they did, Apple would demand a 30 percent cut on sales. Amazon and Barnes & Noble apps aren't even allowed to provide links to purchase pages unless they also make the books available as in-app purchases, with Apple getting that 30 percent cut.

Users of the Kindle and Nook iOS apps can exit the app, open the device's Web browser, navigate to Amazon's or Barnes & Noble's website, purchase books, and then go back into the Kindle or Nook app and download them. But a direct connection between the apps and purchasing mechanisms does not exist today.

That would change under the proposal from the DOJ and 33 state attorneys general:

[The proposal] requires Apple, for two years, to permit any e-book retailer to include in its e-book app a hyperlink to its own e-bookstore, without paying any fee or commission to Apple. This section thus requires Apple, for a relatively brief period of time, to return to its own pre-iBookstore policy of allowing Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other e-book app providers to offer a simple, costless means for readers to purchase e-books directly from the third party. This provision is intended to reset competition among trade e-book retailers and deny Apple the benefits of its conspiracy. In 2011, shortly after adding Random House’s titles to the iBookstore, Apple forced its retailer rivals to remove the hyperlinks from their e-book apps (in order to avoid paying Apple a 30 percent commission on their sales). By doing so, Apple made it more difficult for consumers using Apple devices to compare e-book prices among different retailers, and for consumers to purchase e-books from other retailers on Apple’s devices. At the time, as a result of Apple’s collusive agreements, prices for the most popular e-books tended to be the same across retailers, and many consumers likely determined that shopping around for a better e-book price was a waste of time.

The DOJ proposal would also bar Apple "from entering into contracts that would, in any way, fix the price that any of its competitors charge for content." Apple would not be able to share information with publishers in attempts to take "collective action" that raises prices across the board. The proposed judgment would remain in effect for 10 years, but certain requirements will not last that long.

Apple would have to terminate the agency agreements with publishers that were crucial in the conspiracy. "Apple also is barred, for five years, from either enforcing its retail price MFNs [most favored nation contracts] against publishers or accepting limitations on its own ability to price-compete with respect to e-books," the DOJ's proposal states.

Finally, Apple would have to hire a full-time, internal antitrust compliance officer to make sure the company plays by the rules. "The PFJ [proposed final judgement] also calls for an External Compliance Monitor, appointed by this Court, with the authority to oversee Apple’s compliance with the PFJ, and to oversee Apple’s internal antitrust compliance provisions," the DOJ wrote. "Apple also will be required to provide to the United States and the Representative Plaintiff States reasonable access to Apple’s documents, information, and personnel."

No financial penalties against Apple are being proposed, but the DOJ said these remedies combined with requirements for publishers will be enough.

"Price competition has returned to the marketplace" because of previous settlements with the publishers accused of conspiring with Apple, the DOJ filing states. Penguin, HarperCollins, Hachette, Simon & Schuster, and Macmillan have agreed to repay $164 million to consumers who were overcharged. The publishers also were "required to terminate agreements that prevented e-book retailers from lowering the prices at which they sell e-books to consumers and to allow for retail price competition in renegotiated e-book distribution agreements," a DOJ announcement said.

Apple has not responded to a request for comment.

For a full description of how the e-book price fixing worked, see our previous story on the issue, "How Apple led an e-book price conspiracy—in the judge’s words."

UPDATE: Apple has filed a response in court, saying the "overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime—applicable only to Apple—with intrusive oversight lasting for ten years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process."

The harms from the conspiracy were "already remedied by the publishers' consent decrees," Apple wrote. The restrictions placed on Apple's treatment of e-book apps is also unwarranted because "there was no evidence admitted at trial, or finding by the Court, that the conspiracy involved the App Store," Apple wrote.

Further, Apple contended that the DOJ proposal unfairly targets more than just books.

"Plaintiffs would prohibit Apple from entering into or maintaining 'any agreement with any E-book Publisher or supplier of any other form of content (e.g., music, other audio, movies, television shows, or apps) where such agreement likely will increase, fix, or set the price at which other E-book Retailers or retailers of other forms of content can acquire or sell E-books or other forms of content' for the entire ten-year period of the judgment," Apple wrote. "This absurdly broad proposal is not only disconnected from any evidence adduced at trial or findings made by this Court, but would open Apple up to liability in virtually every content market for the actions of content producers, over which it has no control."