Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfCrash
I fail to understand the need to defend Apple when they lost in court and on appeal and are paying out a good deal more then the Publishers who they colluded with who were smart enough to see that they were going to lose the case.
But, if it makes you happy, go for it.
I was fine paying what I paid to buy what I wanted to read. I was annoyed that the price went up the way that it did but I wanted to read what I wanted to read and I could afford it so I paid it. I was pissed when it happened less because of the increase and more because it was a targeted attempt to attack Amazon because Apple wanted to dominate the book market the same way it did them music market.
So I will happily spend my refund and snicker at Apple's failed ploy.
|
Discussing legal distinctions is not defending Apple. What Apple was found guilty of was conspiracy to commit per se anti-trust violations, not of fixing prices or driving prices up.
There are two different approaches to Anti-trust. The tradition view is that a company is guilty of per se violations if they do certain things regardless of the circumstances. The more recent view (which is still the legal precedent, btw) is that under certain circumstances, you have to prove that the public was harmed. This is known as rule of reason.