Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
This, a thousand times this. The publishers either colluded or they didn't; it makes no difference to the legal question of whether or not they acted illegally if they only did it because they were just protecting those poor, poor consumers from mean ol' Amazon.
|
The Supreme Court of the United States- who are the the only people who count, in the end- has held that in certain cases the they would look beyond whether there was an agreement or decision to fix prices.
Quote:
|
On June 28, 2007, the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles, discussed below, holding that such vertical price restraints as Minimum Advertised Pricing are not per se unlawful but, rather, must be judged under the "rule of reason." Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., Slip Op. No. 06–480 (Decided June 28, 2007).[4] This marked a dramatic shift on how attorneys and enforcement agencies address the legality of contractual minimum prices, and essentially allowed the reestablishment of resale price maintenance in the United States in most (but not all) commercial situations.
|
LINK
Now people can repeat
ad nauseam about what the courts should be looking at, and ascribe any kind of motives to me, but what they can't say is that I am wrong on the law. Because I'm not wrong.
There is a reason why the best legal talent the defense can buy make arguments other than collusion. Because they know the law, and they're not wrong either.
Now Canadian law may be different. May be the law there is that the courts will look only on the issue of collusion, and I bow to your superior expertise there. But US law is different. THE END.