[DiapDealer]

In all honesty, I've never understood the whole "something had to be done about Amazon" defense. Even IF it was a given (and it's not) that Amazon was guilty of predatory pricing and abusing a monopolistic position, how would that ever justify breaking the antitrust laws that they (Apple) were deemed to have broken in the first place? Violating antitrust to protect an industry from an antitrust violater (or to gain access to said industry) isn't actually a valid defense, is it? It sure shouldn't be if it is.

And if your appeal is predicated on the idea that you (Apple) never violated antitrust in the first place, then how is the suggestion that Amazon DID (or didn't, for that matter) violate antirust even relevant to your appeal, at all?

I truly don't get it. Is their appeal really based on "we don't think we broke the law, but if you say we DID ... then we're saying we only broke the law in self defense." ?

Either Apple broke the law (in which case Amazon isn't relevant). Or Apple didn't break the law (in which case Amazon STILL isn't relevant). With regard to their current predicament anyway.