Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
To belabor the point even more ...
YES!
Market condition is at the heart of any anti-trust case. It's one of the reasons that I have said that this case turns anti-trust on it's ear. Anti-trust is at it's heart about improving competition, not protecting a monopoly. Fairly obviously, the fact that the appeals judges seem to be focused on this in their comments point to this. The government's case was built on ignoring that they were protecting Amazon's monopoly by going after a new entry into the market. Judge Cote bought into that idea, but that doesn't make it correct.
|
Well, from Apple's standpoint it's too bad you're not one of the judges. It looks you're invested 100% in Apple's BS argument that didn't go anywhere in the original case. First off, Amazon does not have a monopoly in the book market ... so, so much for that part of the argument. Second -- AGAIN -- it doesn't matter what Amazon was doing (or not doing) the collusion between Apple and the Publishers is an anti-trust violation. Period. And -- AGAIN -- it's not Apple's and the Publisher's job to police Amazon -- if they really believed Amazon was committing anti-trust violations, it was their job to go the Justice Department with a complaint, not break the law to "correct" the market share.
The truth is Apple -- by colluding with the Publishers -- wanted to corner the eBook market for itself. That's plainly seen in the emails and in Jobs' statements before the release of the iPad. This after-the-fact revisionism (after Apple and the Publishers were caught with their hands in the cookie jar) is just pure BS justification for them breaking the law. Only if the judges are dishonest and inclined to favor Apple no matter where the facts lead does this appeal have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.