Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
A couple things to note: (i) the "Complaint" is the complaint by the government, which does not match Amazon's complaint; and (ii) the court did not find any evidence that Amazon had engaged in predatory pricing.
|
What you say is, on the surface, true. As to (i), the question is not did the DOJ submit Amazon's complaint verbatim, which is what you say did not happen, but whether the DOJ in (a) deciding to pursue the matter and (b) in drafting its own complaint was strongly influenced by the matters of which Amazon was complaining rather than from the results of an independent unbiased analysis of the facts. I think it is fair to say the DOJ was relying on Amazon's groundwork research. That the DOJ made the words fit what the court would expect to read, is not relevant to the underlying issue of Amazon's influence over the DOJ.
As to (ii), the court couldn't find predatory pricing on Amazon's part because the court excluded all evidence there of and any reference thereto. When the court determines that there was no evidence supporting a claim of predatory pricing, all the court is really saying is that "I excluded all evidence that would support such a claim, so now I can truthfully say no such evidence was provided." This is a sample of where a judge's bias can prevail -- if I don't admit evidence of wrongdoing, I can't find that there was wrongdoing. When I practiced, we called this the blinders effect (from the blinders that were put on horses to make them unaware of predators off to the sides.