I don't think this will make stonetools' breakfast cereal slide down very easily but, even though it might spoil his breakfast, it appears the
US District Court is not too impressed with Apple's protestations of innocence.
Quote:
|
Cote does note, however, that Apple disclosed parts of its pricing negotiations between publishers, which implies the company could have been working to get the publishers to agree to raise prices. "Apple contends that these were legitimate disclosures that Apple was entitled to use in order to gain leverage. Apple argues that Jobs’s statements that the customer would '[pay] a little more' and that prices would 'be the same' at Apple and Amazon were simply accurate descriptions of the MFN clauses and accurate predictions of the consequences of the Agency Agreements," Cote wrote. "[T]hese arguments misconstrue the standard for pleading an antitrust conspiracy in this district."
|
Edit: Looks like carld beat me to it by a few minutes. Maybe the two threads should be merged by the mods?