Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
No pwalker8 isn't describing a system that would work in Apple's favor. But hey, that's a nice straw man. Pwalker8 is describing "i.e. judge waits until _after_ the trial to start writing the decision" how the system of justice is suppose to work. Ever heard of a jury rendering a verdict before the trial? Well, actually I have, but usually when a jury makes up it's mind before the trial, the verdict gets thrown out on appeal.
|
She didn't render a verdict and she didn't write her decision. What she
said was:
Quote:
|
"I believe that the government will be able to show at trial direct evidence that Apple knowingly participated in and facilitated a conspiracy to raise prices of e-books, and that the circumstantial evidence in this case, including the terms of the agreements, will confirm that," Cote said.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
My point all along is that Judge Cote did not follow normal legal procedures and allowed a novel legal theory that is specifically in conflict with the most recent Supreme Court ruling with regards to Anti-Trust. Apple is appealing on both of those grounds. We are still waiting for the first stage of the appeal to be ruled on. My expectation is that the case will most likely make it up to the Supreme Court.
Legal appeals are mostly about points of law. There are many reasons why an appeal will be refused or not which have nothing to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the plaintiff.
|
The
appeal is pure nonsense:
Quote:
|
The district court’s ruling that Apple, in the very act of launching the iPad, inventing the iBooks Store, and entering the e-books market, violated the Sherman Act is a radical departure from modern antitrust law and policy.
|
That was not the
ruling of the court, but quite clearly the opposite:
Quote:
|
If Apple is suggesting that an adverse ruling necessarily implies that agency agreements, pricing tiers with caps, MFN clauses, or simultaneous negotiations with suppliers are improper, it is wrong. As explained above, the Plaintiffs have not argued and this Court has not found that any of these or other such components of Apple’s entry into the market were wrongful, either alone or in combination. What was wrongful was the use of those components to facilitate a conspiracy with the Publisher Defendants.
|