|
My point is that there are legal issues arising from this case and sound defense arguments available that go beyond whether collusion occurred. How people missed that after reading that article I cannot fathom, actually. An anti-trust expert quoted made it very clear that collusion was one of the
three major points of law at issue in this case. What could be clearer than that?
Indeed I have quoted from Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in an antitrust case stating that if supplier fixes a higher than market price , its legally permissible in certain cases .The SCOTUS has not held in that it could happen in case involving multiple suppliers, but they certainly could, if you review the arguments that the Supreme Court accepted.
To quote a certain entity,
" This conversation can serve no purpose any longer. Goodbye."
|