Quote:
Originally Posted by K. Molen
leebase, I'm curious... Are you saying you don't believe Apple broke the law, or that they did but that they were justified in doing so because of Amazon's behaviour?
|
I think the PUBLISHERS apparently did collude. I do not think Apple did. Reading the judges pdf, it appeared to me that Apple is guilty for being the reason that the publishers colluding could succeed...and that Apple should have known/did know that the publishers were talking to each other.
Apple layed out very reasonable "it's in our best normal business interest" reasonings for their actions. Thus the worst interpretation of their actions need not have been the one the judge decided to believe.
MFN - it's not illegal, Apple didn't invent it. Apple did not have to worry about what the publishers would do once Apple was given MFN. For the judge to say that MFN meant Apple was forcing the publishers to make all retailers go Agency and is thus illegal would mean MFN clauses in any other case would also be illegal.
By NOT looking at the complete story -- not allowing ANY consideration of the position Amazon had put the publishers in, and thus accepting $9.99 as the "real price of ebooks", then the judge was exactly treating the "shooting of a burlar" as crime when it really isn't or shouldn't be.