Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
No, from this thread we learn that crony capitalism is whenever someone gets a favor from the government, regardless of how you feel about them personally. Back during the browser wars, I used Netscape over I.E., yet I acknowledge that Netscape got favorable treatment from the US government based on donations and personal contacts. That makes it crony capitalism, regardless of if I think that Netscape was a superior browser.
I point out that Amazon didn't "make a complanant" but rather wrote a white paper which presented a rather novel legal theory that spun the idea on what constituted anti-trust on it's head. The US government then used that white paper as the basis of their complaint against the five publishers and Apple.
|
Uh...I've read the decisions, and I'm having a bit of a headscratch on what the "novel legal theory" the DOJ used was. It was a pretty clear case of collusion, and the judgment was consistent with the evidence presented and the current state of the law in the U.S. This doesn't appear to be so much a favour from the DOJ to Amazon, but rather the DOJ enforcing anti-trust laws. Maybe you can elaborate on what the "novel legal theory" was, because those are always good to have in the back of your mind for a rainy day.
You keep using the word "white paper" as if you think that's some special significance to that, but there just isn't without more.
I keep asking you for evidence, and you just keep making the same non-argument that goes: "Amazon made a complaint (which included legal citations), the DOJ pursued it, and an impartial court found illegal collusion on the part of publishers, so Amazon must be in bed with the feds!!!!!1111." You mentioned donations and personal contacts, what were these? Or are you just speculating? And what's your evidence that those things caused the DOJ to act, and then a court to find against the publishers?
So can a company never make a complaint to the DOJ without it being "crony capitalism" if the DOJ's lawyers decide there's merit to the complaint?