Quote:
Originally Posted by dickloraine
I have no clue about law, but aren't there criteria what to appy - per se or reason? And even if reason should have been applied, there is no way now to know if this would have resulted in apple not being proofed guilty. You know, just because reason should be applied doesn't mean what apple did was actually in reason.
|
Actually, Judge Cote's opinion covered the "reason" approach.
She said her ruling was based on the facts and that that alone proved them guilty. Then she did an aside and said that if one applied the "reason" approach...they would still be found guilty and explained it.
At the appeals court, one judge said that only per se applied and rule of reason was inapplicable; the second judge said Cote was right to consider rule of reason (and agreed with her full ruling) and the third judge "reasoned" a path to effectively saying antitrust doesn't apply, facts be damned.
At this point Apple's appeal is more about showmanship than law. But it might backfire. The Court might take the case to reverse itself and make price maintenance illegal once more, having seen how it has been used to stiffle horizontal competition.
Some sleeping dogs should not be nudged.