Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
My understanding is that for a violation to have occurred by Apple, they have to have knowingly entered into a conspiracy with the publishers, and no, offering each publisher the same contract is not proof of a conspiracy.
|
The issue isn't that Apple offered each publisher the same contract, it is that they discussed the terms that the publishers will offer other retailers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotech_Master
Jeff Bezos is honestly a brilliant marketer, and I can't say that enough. That doesn't necessarily mean he's a good person (indeed, marketers being what they are, it might mean quite the opposite!), but he's done an amazing job of building Amazon up out of nothing into an e-commerce powerhouse. Some of the things he's done have been a little iffy, and some have been very iffy, but they haven't crossed the line into illegal yet.
|
Amazon did cross the line into illegal by sending ultimatums to POD (print on demand) publishers to use their service, but they
settled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
She seems to think so, certainly she wasn't interested in hearing any counter argument when she was the judge listening to the appeal. But then again, that's her reputation. As I've said before, she has been overturned a number of times, even though she shows this level of detail in most of her judgments.
As I mentioned before, most of the legal opinions that I've read are split. Some say she made some serious errors in her judgment and will certainly be over turned, others say that she dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's and thus is appeal proof. We will have a better idea once Apple actually files the text of their appeal, which will give the legal rational.
|
You can't say that it is a legal opinion if it is an anonymous comment. And you have been asked before to clarify how often she was overturned. I imagine that most judges will have been overturned a number of times if their career has been long enough.