The fruity cargo cult is having another go at trying to convince a court that it is not an evil company which set up a pricing cartel to force its customers to pay far too much for ebooks.
Despite the fact that its co-conspirators have admitted that they have done wrong and paid fines, Apple's reality distortion field will not allow it to admit that it has done wrong.
In fact it is currently urged a US appeals court to throw out a judge's "radical" finding that it violated antitrust law by manipulating electronic book prices. Instead, it claims that the publishers were running a conspiracy it claimed to know nothing about.
This argument is a little amusing as Steve Jobs actually bragged about the conspiracy in his biography and there are a few Apple emails which indicated that Jobs' Mob did know about the whole thing.
Apple claimed that it lawfully took advantage of market "discord" and the publishers' own frustrations with Amazon, and "kick-started competition in a highly concentrated market, delivering higher output, lower price levels, and accelerated innovation".
It will be a matter for the Appeals court to decide if that sentence is just a spinning of the phrase "set up an illegal cartel with publishers to force its customers to pay more than they needed to".
Apple tends to believe that its perception is reality and its experience in the courts has so far been met with total denial.
US District Judge Denise Cote in New York concluded last July after a nonjury trial that Apple had played a "central role" in illegally scheming as early as December 2009 with five publishers to raise e-book prices and impede competitors such as Amazon.com.
The publishers previously agreed to pay more than $166 million to settle related antitrust charges.
Apple insisted that Cote's decision was a "radical departure from modern antitrust law" and If allowed to stand, the ruling will stifle innovation, chill competition, and harm consumers.
Apple also again faulted Cote's appointment of Washington lawyer Michael Bromwich to monitor its antitrust compliance, calling that oversight unconstitutional.
Already the 2nd Circuit rejected Apple's request to halt Bromwich's oversight during its appeal so it is not likely that things are going to go as Jobs' Mob plans.