Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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? |
When I read Judge Cote's opinion, I don't see this. She writes that Apple's actions were illegal by rule of reason as a vertical price-fixing conspiracy but could also be said to be per se illegal as a horizontal price-fixing conspiracy. She never says vertical price maintenance is per se illegal. Apple could possibly have room to argue that they weren't a horizontal player but I don't see them successfully arguing that they weren't liable by rule of reason as a vertical player. The appellate court doesn't seem terribly impressed, from what I can see.