Thread: Apple appeals to Supreme Court
View Single Post
Old 09-18-2015, 05:54 PM   #7
murg
No Comment
murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,240
Karma: 23878043
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo: Not just an eReader, it's an adventure!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8 View Post
No, as the article said, they are trotting out the old "Cote failed to consider the case in the proper framework", i.e. Cote used to per se criteria for determining anti trust rather than the rule of reason, which was the decision in the Leegin case (2007) the most recent Supreme Court anti trust decision.
You're right.

Cote did fail to consider the case in the proper framework:
murg is offline   Reply With Quote