[DuckieTigger]

Shall we dance on hot coals barefoot? I try to specifically include every sentence of yours this time so none of the sentences feel left out.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh.

Sigh. Sigh.

Nice straw man.

Thank you, but only because you say so doesn't make it so.

I never said that Apple was not found guilty.

And yet you squirm like a fish out of water every time someone mentions that Apple is guilty using the "wrong" words, but not the wrong spirit. Let me demonstrate:

I said that Apple was not found guilty of what the original poster said.

I have to assume you mean that OP said something similar to "Apple is guilty of raising ebook prices"? Because, aehm, that is exactly what they are guilty of. Why? Because Apple illegally orchestrated as ring leader the collusion that set in motion agency pricing for the sole purpose to raise ebook prices of certain publishers that the end customer pays for a licence all at once across the board. Steve Jobs promised that the prices will be the same, Apple wasn't interested in competing in price, Apple requires a 30% profit, Apple reserved the right to discount prices to price match any competitor while maintaining the 30% cut of the lowered price. All that put together in effect raised the prices. And Apple knew exactly that it would happen just like that as they counted on it to grab up marketshare.

I also said that the SC's decision not to hear the appeal does not mean that the SC upheld the verdict, but rather that for various possible reasons, the SC decided not to hear the appeal.

By not deciding to hear the case they did upheld the verdict. What the Supreme Court doesn't do by not hearing a case is to set precedent. Precedent doesn't matter at all for the case at hand, but only matters for the outcome of future cases.

I assume you either didn't bother to read the link that I posted, or decided to ignore the points that I raised about the current state of the Supreme Court.

Yes, that is correct. There is a reason I didn't quote anything relating to the death of one of the judges and the current difficulty to fill the empty seat. There is more than one reason. First, it doesn't make the decision to not hear based on only eight judges any less valid. Second, speculating what would have happened if there were nine is pointless other than to waste time speculating. Third, it is off topic and in depth discussion of it belongs to the P&R forum only.