Quote:
Originally Posted by rcentros
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.
|
No, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a stooge for Apple. Also, simply asserting something doesn't make it so. Amazon had 90% of the ebook market. For legal purposes, that's a monopoly however much that upsets your narrative. I love how you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with your narrative is dishonest. To me, that shows a complete lack of understanding of anti-trust laws. Anti-trust is very complex. Many of the top legal minds disagree strongly when it comes to what is anti-trust and what isn't.
Anti-trust is like homicide, the situation makes all the difference. There is justifiable homicide (i.e. self defense), accidental homicide and 1st degree murder. All three have the same basic action, you kill someone. It's all about the situation.
Anti-trust is all about competition and harming the consumer. You can have a monopoly without being guilty of anti-trust. However, if you have a monopoly, then different standards apply to you. If you don't have a monopoly, then the standards are much looser.