Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
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.
|
Two wrongs don't make a right, but then again, the situation dictates if Apple committed a wrong. The major point is that applying the per se ruling, i.e. what Apple did was illegal no matter what the situation was, is an incorrect reading of the current anti-trust law. The Supreme Court very firmly said that someone has to be in a very specific situation to be found guilty of a per se violation. Apple was not in that situation.
What the judge on the appeals panel seemed to be saying is that he didn't think that the publishers were in that situation either. After thinking about it a bit, I rather see his point. The publishers were not engaged in price fixing, nor were they trying to edge out other publishers. If Amazon was engaged in predatory pricing as the judge called it, then the publishers were trying to increase competition, not constrict it, thus it would not be per se anti-trust. A rather interesting theory. I'm not sure that it would hold up, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.