View Single Post
Old 07-06-2014, 12:41 PM   #187
pwalker8
Grand Sorcerer
pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pwalker8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,196
Karma: 70314280
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Device: iPad Pro, iPad mini, Kobo Aura, Amazon paperwhite, Sony PRS-T2
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimW View Post
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.
The appellate court hasn't ruled on it, or held hearings yet, so it's pretty hard to say if they are impressed or not. Perhaps you are thinking of the stay hearing. The stay hearing had 3 judges, who may or may not be hearing the case on the appeal.
pwalker8 is offline   Reply With Quote