Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
My full comment (including the much larger part you edited out) was about why I thought Amazon was doing what they were doing. If I had simply said that for some people, Amazon can do no wrong and that was it, it would have been ad hominem since I was simply discussing the person rather than the position.
|
No, wrong on your part. If your much larger part that got edited out would have made sense in the first place then it wouldn't have been necessary to point out that Amazon did anything wrong. And since it was merely your opinion you had no right to personally attack those that share a different opinion. What you said was that everybody that doesn't share your opinion is an Amazon lover that never ever thinks Amazon does anything wrong.
Legally speaking, your possibly right opinion has a lot less value than a possibly wrong opinion of a judge that went unchallenged even by the Supreme Court. And then you come up with this crazy idea that the Supreme Court may have had enough reason to NOT set precedent so it wouldn't become the law for the future. The Supreme Court doesn't have to waste time stating the obvious. (To clarify for you: The obvious here means no new law needed as the old laws covered it quite well)
And sure, keep telling yourself that every little thing Apple did (concerning the collusion) was perfectly legal. In the end, the sum of all those individually legal pieces ended up with Apple being guilty. It only took a tiny little bit of illegal collusion in this context to turn all those other legal pieces illegal.
Apple didn't raise the prices after all, all they did was give the publishers an illegal tool to do so themselves.