Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
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?
|
Well, I'm expressing my opinion rather than arguing a case in court, so the only evidence is purely circumstantial. A bit more solid that the evidence you find so persuasive, but circumstantial none the less. We know that Bezo and his family have donated quite a bit to politicians. We now know that the DOJ seem to have derived their case from a white paper given them by Amazon.
White paper is a technical term. It does have special meaning. The point there is that Amazon didn't file a complaint against the publishers and Apple, which is the normal way of getting the DOJ to investigate. Instead they give what was apparently a secret briefing. It seems fairly likely that they choose this method to avoid getting bad press ("Dominate company charges new entry into ebook market with anti-trust violation". Yea, that would fly well).
When a company gives money to politicians, and then get favorable treatment from the government, then that is the definition of crony capitalism. If Bezos and company hadn't been given money to the right politicians, then I would yield your point, but they were. That's what makes it crony capitalism.