Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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.
|
It means that if Apple were being charged with vertical price maintenance with a retailer they can't be per se guilty and the rule of reason needs to be applied. That's not what Apple was charged with.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It was not after the fact, it was in her final ruling.