Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it particularly meaningful. The problem with her wave of the hand, is that for it _not_ to be per se, one has to present evidence that Apple was indeed involved in a conspiracy. As far as I can tell, there was no such evidence. Instead, she simply stated that she didn't believe the under oath testimony by Apple execs of what happened.
This is all covered in Apple's appeal.
|
I'm just saying that she anticipated Apple's argument and discounted it. I have no idea whether the appellate court will decide that she was wrong to do so, but I find Apple's view that their entry into ebook retailing made it more competitive is laughable, since in my experience, the price of ebooks rose dramatically because of the end of discounting.