Quote:
Originally Posted by Barcey
That's actually not what the Leegin ruling says. I'd suggest you read it.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-480.pdf
The Supreme Court ruled that the rule of reason should have been applied to the Leegin case rather then just rule that vertical price maintenance is automatically illegal. It's based on the opinion that some forms of price maintenance can be beneficial to the consumer and increase competition. It goes on to explain how the rule of reason should be applied (primarily if it benefits the consumer or not) and it is very clear that some forms of price maintenance are clearly anticompetitive.
Personally I don't believe that a rule of reason could conclude that Apple entering the market, removing price competition, removing retailer discounts, removing retailer ability to provide benefit programs and increasing the retail price of best sellers by 50% could be concluded as introducing competition and benefiting the consumer.
Regardless it doesn't matter because Judge Cote explained that the Supreme Court ruling indicates there are de-facto violations that are not subject to the rule of reason and that even if the rule of reason was applied, Apple didn't show the execution of the Agreements had any pro-competitive effects.
If you read the Supreme Court decision it does confirm what Judge Cote ruled. |
I have read it, and it does say what I said it says. Per se means that something is illegal on the face of it, you don't have to prove anything other than it happened. If the big 5 had gotten together and set book prices, that would be per se illegal. The 2007 Leegan ruling says that per se rulings do not apply to vertical markets. According to that ruling, Apple can not be per se guilty.
Yes, I am aware that Judge Cote did an after the fact hand waving to say that she would have found Apple guilty regardless. We will see how convincing the appeals courts find that.