Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Nope, not fact just your projection on the legal opinion of Judge Cote. I can just as easily point to the dissent which found no case existed.
You seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Appeals are based on legal doctrine, not facts. When the Supreme Court declines to hear a case, then that case has zero legal precedent. It would have had legal precedent if the Supreme Court had heard the case and decided to uphold the verdict. With a 4-4 Supreme Court, there are going to be a lot of cases that normally would have been heard and are now being declined.
|
Sigh ... in the American justice system, the judge or jury
is the finder of FACT. And in this case, Cote found this FACT: Apple acted as ringleader and organizer of an illegal horizontal price fixing conspiracy. That, by the way, was Apple's evil deed. They were not dragged into court for simply "agreeing to allow the publishers to set prices" which completely misses the whole point of the case.
Cote's FACTS were upheld 2-1 at the circuit level. The fact that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, means that Cote's FACTS were further upheld. While it is true that cases are less likely to be heard when the Supreme Court is short a justice, it is also true that it only takes 4 justices to grant cert -- a pretty low bar. Since Apple couldn't even muster the support of 4 justices, it is likely a full court would not have altered things.
As for precedent, from a legal perspective, this case will certainly hold sway within the second circuit at least. Moreover, courts from anywhere in the country can still base their rulings on and cite other circuit rulings in their opinions. From a practical everyday perspective, you better believe that company executives since Apple's court loss are much less likely to try to pull off the antics that Jobs did. A high profile case such as this is bound to have a lot of impact, with or without the Supremes weighing in.
So, bottom line, we are all getting our book credits now precisely because of this fact: Apple was guilty of breaking anti-trust law by playing a key role in a horizontal price fixing conspiracy.
--Pat