Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Like the man said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Apple was convicted of anti-trust violations for agreeing to allow the publishers to set the prices, a perfectly legal matter called agency pricing, rather let the book seller set the prices. That is a factual statement of what happened. Asserting that they colluded to force e-book prices to go up from every store and that consumers paid too much is pure opinion.
|
Actually, it's
Judge Cote's opinion, which was upheld on appeal and declined review by the Supreme Court, so as far as legal precedent goes, it's proven fact. From page 5, added emphasis mine:
Quote:
|
As described below, the Plaintiffs have shown that Apple conspired to raise the retail price of e-books and that they are entitled to injunctive relief.
|
You're entitled to
your opinion, but when a case is decided by a court of law, and not overturned, then guess what? When you cite it, you can't be accused of expressing "pure opinion." You're expressing something that is legally considered a fact.
*drops mic*