[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

This "conspiracy" thing is an American concept that is mostly alien to other jurisdictions, unless we are talking about terrorism or mafia related crimes etc.

American law is not all that subtle about crime.
Subtlety is for judges, not prosecutors.

Now, since the Conspiracy Six are being charged in american courts for violating american law, the american definition is what holds.

Rule of thumb: when multiple perps coordinate before, during, or after a crime it is deemed a conspiracy, regardless of whether it is a violent crime or "merely" a civil violation.

For a longer, more authoritative definition:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/conspiracy

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

So it doesn't matter if the act is legal for one actor, just that it be illegal for more than one.

The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended crime.

In this case, it is not *generally* illegal for a company to abandon a market, auction off its market assets, and sign a joint deal with another company. Until the Brusselcrats start making noises, presumption of innocence suggests it is not illegal in this *particular*. (Plenty of time before now and Sept for them to act.)

Now, I'll grant that if Amazon and Waterstones were teaming up to sell *print* books, there would likely be room to complain. But the deal is about ebooks, so...