Incumbents always fight status quo. It is human reaction to protect what you have built. It is also human nature to reap what you've sown. So, you always want to protect what you've sown to reap the rewards, as long as possible and as much as possible. It's (almost) nothing personal. This is why "disruption" seems to be a destructive process. Yet, it is a necessary process for the sake of evolution.
The recent eBooks case against the major publishers and Apple have folks on either side shouting support. There are well articulated arguments for either side. The "agency" side is pulling some major propaganda to convince the world that they are protecting the industry and the other side is not holding back either.
However, it is clear where we need to head.
It's not to artificially increase "competition" or prevent monopolies or monopsonies. It is to ensure that we promote reading books and ensure that we create a strong eco-system that ensures that readers have a strong supply of good literature and authors are compensated well to strengthen that supply. Everything else is moot.
From all the arguments presented, there's one that I shall comment on. DRM sucks! If anything the DoJ should recognize that and use this opportunity to truly provide a great experience for readers and an easy eco-system for authors.
I do believe that current corporate book publishers are the ones that insist DRM existence and requirements. All I ask at the end of this is - let's get DRM out and get the focus back on ensuring that authors continue to write and readers continue to read and make that experience as fucking great as possible.