|
I find it very amusing that those trying to defend Apple refuse to back up questionable assertions with quotes from the principal players or documents involved ... and instead can only rely on parroting the opinions of some in the media whose objectivity is very much in doubt. As such, there should be no surprise if such assertions are only met with pure skepticism.
In case this has not yet been noted in this thread, The Wall Street Journal is the sister company of HarperCollins, one of the publisher defendants who conspired with Apple. The two companies are both owned by the News Corporation, who has been closely and directly linked to the shenanigans of the defendants. Steve Jobs once sent an email to James Murdoch of the News Corporation pleading for him to get HarperCollinns to “Throw in with Apple and see if we can all make a go of this to create a real mainstream e-books market at $12.99 and $14.99.” This is as about as “horizontal” as it can get when it comes to price fixing, and solid evidence such as this is why I think Cote’s judgment will in all likelihood stand unscathed. It’s hilarious reading quotes like this in light of Apple’s continued insistence that they did noting wrong. But back to the WSJ -- Given their relationship to some entities in the case, one can't really expect them to be objective at all.
As for the ruling by the appeals panel, anyone on a blog can claim whatever they want about what it means. But the fact is, the appeals panel did not add anything to the mix that wasn’t already outlined in Cote’s original ruling of September 5, 2013.
The primary thing Apple wanted out of the hearing was a continuance of the injunction that halted the monitor from doing his duties at least until the full hearing before the appeals court. They didn't get this and lost, plain and simple. They know it too, which is why there has not been one peep out of Cupertino regarding the decision since it came down. They've been as silent as a mouse!
--Pat
|