Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
I'm wondering: When you make your pronouncements, are they based on Canadian law and politics? In the United States, white papers are not limited to governments as they are in other countries. In fact, the U.S. government rarely, if ever, releases something it calls a white paper.
I have also noted that many of your pronouncements on law don't quite mesh with what I was taught in law school or was understood when I practiced law in the United States, which admittedly was a long time ago.
Finally, I also note that you give a lot of credence to what Judge Cote had to say and what evidence Cote admitted. I am not familiar with how things work in Canada (or other countries) but I do know that in the United States, judges often manipulate evidence (by their determination as to what is and is not admissible or can be considered) in order to get a particular result. Comparing what Cote admitted to what was offered, I think Cote did a masterful job of selectively admitting evidence to support what struck me as her predetermined decision.
|
I make these "pronouncements" based on my understanding as a currently practicing lawyer who works with American entities (although I don't provide legal advice in the U.S.). I follow U.S. competition law matters closely.
I'll grant your point on the price fixing issue - if evidence of predatory pricing was submitted, it is likely that it would have been deemed irrelevant to the matter, because of course it is irrelevant (you can't illegally collude because your competitor may be doing something bad).
What evidence was it that Judge Cote excluded that would have painted a different picture on the issue of illegal price fixing? Aside of course, from not arriving at your preferred result?