View Single Post
Old 12-16-2014, 07:17 PM   #13
leebase
Karma Kameleon
leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.leebase ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
leebase's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,975
Karma: 26738313
Join Date: Aug 2009
Device: iPad Mini, iPhone X, Kindle Fire Tab HD 8, Walmart Onn
Not that hard to understand. Judge Cote specifically forbid any considering of Amazon in the trial. These appeal judges are looking at the entire scenario.

Without considering Amazon...one could say "Apple's actions are anti competitive in that they raised prices." Considering Amazon, one could say that Amazon was limiting competition and that Apple's actions had a net positive effect on competition.

The phrase one judge used was something like "looks like the mice had to gang up to put a bell on the cat".
leebase is offline   Reply With Quote