|
Actually, that's not what he said. He said that Apple was not guilty of per se Anti-Trust like the other two judges argued. As I mentioned earlier, he calls the book publishers a horizontal cartel and Apple a vertical enabler. He also said that "Apple's conduct, assessed under the rule of reason on the horizontal plane of retail competition, was unambiguously and overwhelmingly pro-competitive. "
No where in his dissent does he say that he thinks that Apple was involved in an anti-trust conspiracy, nor does he say that Apple has the right to play vigilante.
He also says that "A further and pervasive error (by the district court and by my colleagues on this appeal) is the implicit assumption that competition should be genteel, lawyer-designed, and fair under sporting rules, and that anti trust law is offended by gloves-off competition. "
By that, I believe that he means that the other judges don't understand how business is normally conducted in the real world. Pretty much any large company engages in the same sort of negotiations.
|