Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
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 thise 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.
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.
|
I'm thinking you really haven't been paying much attention to what has been going on with the Supreme Court since Scalia's death. The deadlocked court and status of the 4-4 ties have been a major topic. There is some speculation that they may not even fill out their docket next term and will likely only hear cases which are less likely to be deadlocked. This article speculates that we will see a lot of copyright and patent cases next term, because they aren't likely to trigger such divisions.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/divided-...end-1466328601
Once again, no matter how much you want it to be all about Apple, the question here isn't Apple, it's the law and the American legal system.