Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
I am not sure at all. I could understand a legal argument of "we HAD to raise prices to protect the industry." Basically, a "self-defense" argument... "we didn't really raise prices; it just looks that way. We protected The American Public by shifting funds from one area of the industry to another."
|
I can understand why they'd want to do so, but I'm not sure it could be used to justify price fixing. IANAL though, we'll see when the case goes to trial how they're going to argue, imo I think they'll try to show that there wasn't collusion although having read the DOJ filing, that could be tricky.
Quote:
|
But even if that were a valid potential argument, they'd have to explain why they had to raise prices *this* way, and why all of them had to raise prices to the same levels,
|
I don't think* that raising the prices and moving to agency is really the problem, it's how they all did so as one and whether there was an agreement between them to all do so.
Quote:
|
I really am looking forward to the doublespeak that Apple, Macm and Penguin will use in their briefs.
|
yeah, same here
Be interesting to read between the lines on both sides.
*IANAL so it may turn it that it was that, just based on my current reading of the various articles suggests it's more the discussion/agreement between them.