Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
Shouting that agency pricing is irrelevant to the case may provide you with emotionnal catharthis ...
... 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,
|
Dude, you're aware that the only "shouting" in my post were words that I copied and pasted from yours, right? That was sort of the whole point. I thought maybe they were some weird requirement of yours. You know... like how you use "THE INTERNET!!" all the time? But if you want to be all capital-word-hoggy and not let anybody else use them, that's cool. You can keep them. I'm not a big fan anyway. I just thought "When in Rome..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonetools
What the DOJ is arguing is that Apple and the BPH 5 entered into conspiracy to raise prices-AND THAT THEY USED THE AGENCY MODEL- and the MFN clause-to enforce it. Clear now?
|
And I'll leave you with:
"Your Honor. If it will speed things along... the prosecution will concede that there's nothing inherently illegal about
a manufacturer/producer wanting to control the retail price of their 'product'."