View Single Post
Old 02-28-2014, 11:34 AM   #30
bgalbrecht
Wizard
bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.bgalbrecht ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,806
Karma: 13399999
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: US
Device: Nook Simple Touch, Kobo Glo HD, Kobo Clara HD, Kindle 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
Apple's appeal is based on the 2007 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc vs. PSKS, Inc Supreme Court ruling that vertical price restraints is _not_ illegal per se. That's the ruling that Judge Cote either ignored or dismissed with a wave of her hand.
The last time you mentioned this in the thread, I pointed out that Cote already covered it when she wrote that even if the evidence did not support a per se violation, the case would come out the same under the rule of reason standard, because Apple cannot show any pro-competitive effect of the publisher agreements. I guess you either ignored it or dismissed it with a wave of your hand.
bgalbrecht is offline   Reply With Quote