Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The trial was about illegal *behavior*.
|
That's consistent with the judge's statements. But if you look at what is actually prosecutable, I think it is about illegal commercial speech.
Quote:
|
The remedies are about *stopping* that behavior and making sure it doesn't return and about restoring price competition as required by law.
|
Price competition between retailers of the same product is
not required by US law as enforced. A good example is the way Apple forces retailers of its hardware products to charge no less than the
minimum advertised price.
Now, if Apple and Microsoft got together and agreed that the Surface and Macbook would both have fixed retail prices (or fixed within a narrow range), that would be illegal. They would have to do it without clearcut communications. Airlines who often charge identical-to-the-penny prices on competing routes -- and also often don't let retailers like Orbitz undercut the prices at the airline's own web site -- have this down pat. They went through
antitrust thirty years ago, got spanked, and now fix prices legally.
Quote:
|
The judge is now required to find a set of remedies that (at a minimum) prevents the Gang of 5 from ever using Apple as a hub for collusion . . .
|
Ever? Then why is the proposed punishment for five years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The BPHs were reasonably smart and settled before going to trial.
|
Right. Because they gave up their right to trial, they only are required to give up to their right to fix retail prices for two years.
One of the most disgraceful aspects of the US legal system, in many jurisdictions, is that if you exercise your supposed right to a trial, your punishment can easily be doubled. The way I read Judge Cote's apparently prejudicial statements is that she was incentivizing Apple to settle. I'm not saying we should feel sorry for Apple, but I do feel sorry for
ordinary people caught up in our system.