Originally Posted by 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.
|