Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Whatever dude. You don't have to be an expert on US antitrust law to note that the courts since 2007 changed on whether they look beyond just whether there was collusion- you just have to be open minded and see what the experts are saying.
Here is what one expert says:
LINK
That seems to me to go beyond an issue of "just collusion"-way beyond. And it doesn't even the address the issue of whether there is a legal justification if collusion is proved-the Leggit argument.
The point is that this is not just a simple "Was there proof of collusion" case. I'm saying that not because I'm an expert-I'm not. I'm saying that because the experts are saying that -and I'm reading what they're saying. |
I have to say, I consider myself to be a literate person (who actually clicked through and read the article) and I have absolutely no idea what you think is in that link that supports your argument. And now I'm starting to think that maybe you don't even know what your argument is anymore.
The publishers and Apple either colluded or they didn't and that's a legal question. Are you just trying to say (but articulating badly) that there's a defense to collusion that the publishers have (which would go to the legal question of is there collusion)? As far as I know, there's no defense in a case of collusion that says its not collusion if the one you're trying to nail is Amazon, but hey, you're the legal expert.
Also, having taken a look at the full text of the case in the Wikipedia article you previously posted, I note that it also doesn't seem to support the point I think you're trying to make.