Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY
I disagree. The Supreme Court denying cert leaves the lower court rulings to stand intact, essentially rubber-stamping them. And while courts in other districts won’t be bound by this case, they are often persuaded to rule similarly in cases that have similar circumstances.
The Supreme Court in essence said the DOJ and Cote were right, Apple is guilty, and Leegin does NOT apply to vertical players who orchestrate a horizontal conspiracy.
As for a possible 4-4 tie had they decided to hear the case, that doesn’t seem likely. I think it’s much more likely that – at best – 3 justices were sympathetic to Apple’s side, since it only takes 4 justices to grant cert. If more than 3 justices had found there to be significant value to the appeal, there is no reason not to grant cert. There is no law that says the justices have to decide a case in the term in which it was submitted. So if they felt, as constituted, they would have simply ended up 4-4, they could have instead granted cert, then tabled the case until Scalia’s replacement was on board – even if that isn’t until 2017 – since oral arguments had not even been heard yet.
And it’s not like SCOTUS passed on this because they think they’ll be presented with similar cases in the future. It took a company with very deep pockets and an extraordinary amount of arrogance – which Jobs and Cue had in overabundance at the time – to do what Apple did, then appeal it all the way to SCOTUS when they get nailed for it. I’ve heard some say Cook wouldn’t have done what Jobs did, and I agree. So, a case like this may never again get to SCOTUS in the foreseeable future. If SCOTUS wanted to adjust these rulings in relation to Leegin, here was the chance.
The Supremes turn down high profile cases every year and deny cert for most. They only accept something like 10% or less of the cases presented to them annually. What evidence do you have that they are turning down more cases than normal now?
Leegin was not the proper standard to use in the Apple case. That's what the denial of cert essentially means.
|
Actually they pass on cases all the time when they are not ready to address a specific situation. You have internalize this case way, way more than the Supreme Court ever does. For them it's about overarching legal issues, i.e. addressing anti-trust, not about if they think that Cote was correct or not, or if they dislike Apple or not. For the most part, they accept cases when they want to make a statement and decline cases when they don't want to make a statement.
The Supreme Court declining to hear a case is a blank slate. They never say why they decided not to hear this or any other case. So you are simply projecting your view on an empty screen. There are many different possibilities. They may simply view the case as moot since for all practical purposes it is (Even if Apple won, that wouldn't change anything in the ebook market place). There may simply not be enough judges who are interested in addressing anti-trust at this time. There were a series of interviews with the various Supreme Court justices that use to be on Audible that are quite interesting with regard to how the Supreme Court works. If I recall correctly a couple (I specifically remember Scalia) talked about why they decide to pick cases in general terms. You should listen to them.