Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
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.
|
They're not denying the anti-trust allegations. Those are too obvious and there's too much evidence. It's not Apple's right to determine that "Amazon needs be knocked down a peg or two and we'll break the law to do it." If they felt Amazon was breaking anti-trust laws (which they weren't) they should have filed a complaint with the Justice Department, not gone "vigilante." But, really, they're full of BS. Jobs bragged about how he was going to take the eBook business and raise prices. And he colluded with the publishers to do so. When Apple got its hands stuck in the cookie jar, that was then they started yelling, "they're the ones who took the cookies!" They just need to take their medicine and shut up about this. The more they whine about Amazon, the more they're going to look like feckless fringe dwellers.