Quote:
Originally Posted by Barcey
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.
It was not after the fact, it was in her final ruling.
|
Good lord, almighty. Are you so eager to declare me in error that you don't even bother reading what is said?
I said "The Leegin ruling basically says that vertical markets can not be found to be per se guilty under the Sherman anti-trust act. ..."
You replied "hat'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. ..."
What exactly do you think per se guilty is? It means automatically illegal.
The Justice Department maintained that by offering the publishing companies agency pricing, i.e. the publishing companies set the price" along with the most favored nation clause, "i.e. you can't sale the book for less than you change here", Apple was guilty of violation of the Sherman Anti-trust law. In their filing with the appeals court, they once again asserted that this behavior was a per se violation. It is fairly clear. What exactly do you think Apple is being charged with?