Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
As for legal experts in general, I suggest you look back through previous discussions here. You weren't convinced in the past, I see no reason why regurgitating names will change anything today.
As for Judge Jacobs, you are wrong. He agreed with the majority ruling that Apple did indeed conspire -- but he said that Apple should get a free pass on having done so, on the grounds that a conspiracy was pro-competitive in breaking the legendary Amazon stranglehold -- and therefore it shouldn't be an anti-trust offense. 
Go read this thread from post #426. Oh, wait, you did -- because at the time you engaged in the discussion.
Must've slipped your mind.  |
Yea, that's pretty much what I thought. Standard rhetorical appeal to "experts".
Judge Jacobs ruled that it was not a per se violation, but rather required the rule of reason, which is what I was saying. You continue to misuse the word conspiracy. You use the word in place of negotiation or agreement. Used the way you are trying to use it, every company in the world that negotiates with more than one supplier is guilty of conspiracy.
The legal definition of conspiracy, from the Cornell University Law School -
An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal. Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement. An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."
For something to be conspiracy, the act must be illegal. My argument is that under the Leegin doctrine, Apple negotiating the same basic deal with the various publishers is not illegal or at least has not been proven to be illegal yet.