Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
I'm not sure why that was considered important since that's not remotely the contract that Apple negotiated with the various publishers.
|
It's direct evidence of Apple’s role as recruiter and organizer of the conspiracy. The quote is not meant to show any specifics of a final contract.
Quote:
|
I would rather imagine that the Supreme Court would hear it since the ruling on what Per Se means with regards to Anti-Trust is contrary to what they ruled in the last major anti-trust ruling. At the minimum, the Supreme Court might hear it simply because if they don't, the the ruling isn't the law of the land, but rather only holds sway in the area the 2nd Court covers. That's the way the US legal system works. Just because a couple of judges in the 2nd Court say something doesn't mean that anyone outside their jurisdiction is bound by it.
|
I think the Supremes are likely to see this case as having sufficient differences in the actions of the major players as compared to their last major anti-trust case as to warrant the judgment from Cote, and so they'll view it as not really contrary. Hence they will likely deny to hear it.
Agreed, though, that they may take the case simply to clarify points of law, but then I think they will rule on the side of the DOJ.
--Pat