Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
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.
|
I think it would have been possible for Apple to have done this without being found guilty of collusion, if they had left everything to their legal department and refused any contact with the publishers from anybody other than their lawyers.
Then everything would have been nice and sanitised and they would have had a plausible argument that they were simply offering standard terms to each publishers, and had nothing to do with the publishers colluding to decide to accept.
But they didn't do that. They allowed non-lawyers to get involved, which is why there is a papertrail proving that their hands were dirty too.
Lesson here is to leave the law-breaking to the lawyers, they are the experts.