Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
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".
|
Mice ganging up to bell the cat (whether you agree with that assessment or not) is still collusive violation of antitrust law, which is the point everyone else is trying to make.
The appropriate action for Apple and the publishers to take was of course to come to the courts and bring an antitrust claim against Amazon.
Judge Cote was
supposed to ignore Amazon, because Amazon is outside the scenario.
The scenario is a collusive antitrust violation carried out by Apple and the publishers; whether they
a) took the law into their own hands, or
b) had unjustifiably ulterior motives
is irrelevant to the case.