Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY
Judge Cote has been vindicated and deserves an apology from many, including some of the so-called legal experts in the media, who declared she was biased and didn’t know what she was doing in this case.
The cert denial also shows that all those who used Leegin as a rallying cry to defend Apple wrongly applied that case to Apple. Either they couldn’t see or refused to admit that Apple’s role was not really analogous to what Leegin did. While not exactly an apples & oranges difference, the roles and behavior of the two companies were sufficiently different to have separated them legally.
As for the monetary settlement, that’s of little importance to me, and I’ll probably only get a few dollars out of it. What’s important is to prevent the next big company from trying to manipulate market prices through widespread collusion with suppliers
|
Hardly. You misunderstand what the failure to grant cert actually means. The Supreme Court ruling against Apple might have meant what you say, but the Supreme Court declining to hear the case simply means that the ruling has no legal precedence in any other circuit other than the 2nd.
We are already seeing this court decline to hear a number of high profile cases. I suspect that will continue to be the case until we have an odd number of judges again. We really don't know why the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. It could be that it was likely to end up a 4-4 tie, it could be that they felt that they had more pressing cases to hear. I think that it's likely that if a majority of judges wanted to make the statement that you claim, then they would have heard the case and voted that way. Not hearing the case makes no statement at all.