Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Frankly the thought of an Amazon that dominates the market gives me pause.
|
And there may be merit to such concerns.
Especially if you don't think the feds are looking at Amazon, just waiting for an excuse to jump in. (Which, btw, they are: the "most favored nation" clause they demanded after Apple got one brought the feds to their doorstep, too.)
But *this* case, *this* issue, is *not* about Amazon.
The original report in the WSJ made that clear: the feds heard all the anti-Amazon arguments and they are *still* going to sue.
Because the issue is exactly what they said it is: a cartel got together to raise prices on consumers. Whether or not their (alleged) fears about Amazon justify gouging consumers is something for the defendants' attorneys to present (or not) and for the courts to decide if they do. Just as it will be up to the courts to decide if they want to expand a narrow, one-case decision and overturn a century of antitrust consumer protection against carteling.
The criminal's motivation and intent is not for prosecutors to ponder; their concerns are whether a crime has been committed, which specific crime, and by whom. And the answers to those questions will come with the actual lawsuit.
And, BTW, I strongly suspect there *will* be a lawsuit unless the evidence is so damning that all the BPHs cave. That it got this far means the feds think there is enough of a case to file. But the way the game is played, the weaker the case, the more likely it'll end up at trial, with all the attendant publicity, and the stronger the case, the more likelihood it doesn't, because the BPHs and Apple will want to keep the raw details out of the public eye.
So let's just wait and see if and when the filing occurs.