Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
My basic understanding is that the main chink is the per se violation. Over the last twenty years, the Supreme Court has consistently said that per se only applies to horizontal not vertical. That is to say, while it may be a per se violation for several publishing firms to get together and discuss prices, it is not a per se violation for Apple to discuss prices with a publishing firm or multiple publishing firms.
|
Which is probably why Judge Cote went on to expound in great detail in her opinion on how it would
also have failed the legal tests required even if it
wasn't a per se violation. She seems to like to tie up little details like that. She also addressed all the points Apple had originally raised then dropped as time went on or that events had rendered moot in her decision denying a stay of the monitorship, even though the argument could be made that they were no longer relevant since Apple had dropped them.
That kind of attention to detail is probably part of why those aforementioned legal experts tend to think her decision is so strongly appeal-resistant.