View Single Post
Old 12-17-2014, 09:11 AM   #43
Shades
Zealot
Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Shades ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Shades's Avatar
 
Posts: 119
Karma: 1246392
Join Date: Nov 2010
Device: Nothing Phone (2a) + @Voice, Kobo Libra H2O
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
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.
Err... No.
You don't stop something you think is illegal by doing something else which is illegal. You report (file a complaint) the activity to the authorities.

As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.
Shades is offline   Reply With Quote