The critical part of the ruling, in my opinion:
Quote:
If Apple is suggesting that Amazon was engaging in illegal, monopolistic practices, and that Apple’s combination with the Publisher Defendants to deprive a monopolist of some of its market power is pro-competitive and healthy for our economy, it is wrong.
This trial has not been the occasion to decide whether Amazon’s choice to sell NYT Bestsellers or other New Releases as loss leaders was an unfair trade practice or in any other way a violation of law.
If it was, however, the remedy for illegal conduct is a complaint lodged with the proper law enforcement offices or a civil suit or both. Another company’s alleged violation of antitrust laws is not an excuse for engaging in your own violations of law. Nor is suspicion that that may be occurring a defense to the claims litigated at this trial.
|
Someone else wrote this about the trial, but not being a lawyer or an American I'm having some difficulty parsing it. Can anyone help?
Quote:
Apple is pressing this because they are playing the odds.
Since the late 90's, most per-se rules that existed for the antitrust act (vertical resale price maintenance, etc) have been converted back to rule of reason analysis by the Supreme Court.
The only one so far that has not is "horizontal price fixing", which is what Apple is accused of.
They are playing the odds that if they appeal it up the chain far enough, SCOTUS will take it and declare horizontal price fixing not per-se illegal.
Apple knows that Amazon's conduct will not save them from a per-se illegal ruling like what just happened, it would only possibly save them under the rule of reason. This argument (and that part of the decision) is really directed at getting the supreme court (or at least the appeals court) to decide on the merits if SCOTUS declares horizontal price fixing to be not per-se illegal, rather than have to go through a trial again, etc.
Essentially, apple has nothing to lose by pressing except a little bad press, and much to gain.
|