Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
What do you mean by that?
|
What I mean is that much of the discussion appears to be based on the emotion rather than the actual legalities of the case. Anti-Trust law is one of those odd situations where much of the actual legalities is determined by the courts rather than based on the text of the actual law. The original Sherman anti-trust law by John Sherman, senator from Ohio and brother to William Sherman of Civil War fame, was rather broad and for all practical purposes any large company was guilty of anti-trust under a literal reading of the law. Thus is was quickly limited by the courts to certain situations which have changed over the years.
IMPO, the Apple case is an attempt of the old guard judges to put anti-trust law back as it was before Bork's writings influenced the Supreme Court and was eventually codified by the Leegin decision. Some here seem to see it purely as an Amazon verse publishers and Apple morality play and thus the actually ins and outs of anti-trust law is beside the point.
From a legal point of view, once the Supreme Court decides, then right or wrong, that is the law of the land, unless Congress passes a new law, or the Supreme Court basically reverses themselves in a new case.