Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY
To the contrary, Cote addressed exactly why Apple should be judged as more than just a vertical player (bold emphasis mine):
It doesn't matter that Apple was a vertical partner of the publishers. Apple took on an additional role as a horizontal conspirator. That is the key to Cote's ruling. And while discussing price points with a publishing house or multiple houses is not a per se violation, acting to orchestrate price fixing among multiple companies certainly is. So, of course, it's OK for Jobs or Eddy Cue to have discussed prices with Murdoch. They just can't also tell Murdoch that all the publishers need to act as a GROUP, and then go serve as the go-between for the group, assuring each publisher who was on board and how many had bought into their plan. That is what got Apple into big trouble.
Knowingly entering into a conspiracy with the group of publishers is exactly what they did. In fact they orchestrated it. So, again, simply agreeing to a vertical price agreement with a publisher wasn't the big problem. It was their other behavior.
Is that really a persuasive argument? What federal judge hasn't been overturned a number of times? There are none.
Perhaps you'd like to share with the rest of us such an optimistic prediction from a sound legal mind or legal website by giving a link? Even if it is a short analysis/opinion? I haven't seen one yet, and am curious what the reasoning would be. I'm sure others are too.
--Pat
|
Oh, I'm sure there are federal judges who haven't been overturned. The point is that since Judge Cote has been overturned (the most recent was one this past fall, which I pointed to in the previous thread about this case, some that I found with a casual search include Tyco v Walsh, Barclays v Theflyon thewall.com and Caiola v Citibank, there are others) the assumption that she won't be overturned because she wrote such a detailed judgment doesn't hold water.