Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer
And what is the evidence that I find so persuasive, that is inferior to your "circumstantial" evidence? I can tell you that my opinion is based on the judge's opinion (which I've actually read), and some of the briefs (again, which I've actually read). Yours seems to be based on what you'd like to be true, mixed with some borderline conspiracy theorizing, and with a total lack of understanding of the judicial process in anti-trust cases.
As for the oh-so-secret briefing, it's apparently available for public viewing. Also, it's not a "white paper" in the technical sense, since a private party can't issue one. That's just the term the WSJ used to add some gravitas, and that you picked up because it slotted nicely into the story you've constructed.
Political donations alone don't make for crony capitalism.
What you just described is a classic breach of competition law. And what you do or don't find hard to swallow is irrelevant given the judge's opinion:
And later:
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.
It's unfortunate, pwalker, that the law (not to mention basic facts) don't support your preferred narrative. No doubt this will require you to allege an even more fantastical scheme by Amazon to subvert politicians, the DOJ and a judge.
|
No, I actually did read the judges opinion as well as various analysis of that opinion. My opinion is based on my understanding of the current state of anti-trust law as defined by the US Supreme Court in the 2007 Leegin case.
Apple's appeal is based on the idea that Judge Cote completely and utterly misapplied the law in this case. If that is correct, then simply quoting Judge Cote's ruling doesn't really prove much. Just because _she_ says it's the law, doesn't make it the law. That is why Apple is appealing.