Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
What arguments?? What defense?? AGENCY PRICING MODEL is a defense? Hell, we're not even in the same book, let alone the same page. Are you telling me that you really believe the defense is going to come to the bar all prepared to defend the AGENCY PRICING MODEL while the DoJ is arguing collusion? I may not like them, but I don't think they're particularly stupid.
What I'm saying is simple. Neither the defense nor the DoJ, nor the judge gives two craps about the words AGENCY PRICING MODEL. They won't save or damn anyone in this case. The case won't be won or lost because of AGENCY PRICING MODEL. AGENCY PRICING MODEL will only become relevant again once this case is over. AGENCY PRICING MODEL has no bearing on this case. "Collusion" is the charge. "We didn't collude (and even if it turns out we did, we did it because we love puppies)" is the defense. Clear now?
|
Shouting that agency pricing is irrelevant to the case may provide you with emotional catharthis , but it doesn't really change things. I might add that all I am doing here is laying out the defense case, not whether or not the defenses will work.
You know who thinks that agency pricing is relevant? The DOJ. They spend a chunk of the complaint explaining what the agency pricing model is, why Apple and the publishers wanted it, and what role it played in their theory of the conspiracy. If you like you can address a letter in all caps to the chief litigator of the DOJ saying all of that was a waste of time. Here ya go,
John R. Read
Chief, Litigation III Section
United States Department of Justice
450 5th St NW
Suite 4000
Washington DC 20530
Glad to be of service.
