[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No, not even close.

1) the appeal court didn't even consider the facts in the matter. They considered the specific legal points that Apple appealed on. So the 2-1 ruling says nada about the facts in the case.

Yes, but the fact that the appeals court ruling completely left Cote's finding of facts intact meant that for all intents and purposes, Cote's facts were upheld.

2) The fact that the Supreme Court declined to review the case meant that the Supreme Court declined to review the case period. For those who haven't been paying attention, the Supreme Court is currently in a 4-4 split. Thus they are declining to hear a number of cases that they would have normally since they know that it will end in a deadlock. If the Supreme Court had chosen to hear the case and it ended in a deadlock, then the finding would have been upheld and it would have established precedent. By declining to hear it, they simply say the equivalent of "no comment". It's a rather important distinction.

This has been discussed in the previous thread. But realistically, if Apple could not muster even the support of 4 justices to grant cert, the most logical conclusion is that they had a poor case and you cannot assume even a 4-4 split had the case been heard. Sure, we know there is a distinction between affirming a lower court ruling and declining to hear. But distinction or not, the outcome is the same regarding Cote's decisions and findings -- they are effectively upheld and Apple is still guilty as originally found.

If at least 4 justices felt strongly that Apple's arguments had merit and important legal principles were at stake (like some of the Apple defenders kept insisting), a 4-4 tie would be secondary to being able to write a lengthy defense of Apple's actions and supposedly clarify important points of law.

3) You are correct that other judges (and lawyers) may point to the case. Of course, it's equally correct that Judge Jacobs' dissent may also be pointed at by other judges and lawyers. Certainly, lawyers will be advising their clients based on the decision, but then again, anti-trust law being the mess that it is, lawyers have been advising their clients to tread carefully in such cases for quite a while, as one can tell by reading the various anti-trust articles over the past decade. I rather doubt this case will make much of an impact in that regard. Just my opinion, of course.

A lone dissent at the appeals court level is likely to have very little impact -- and far less impact than the outcome itself. I predict you will never see a repeat of the antics pulled off by Apple in their attempt to influence eBook pricing. And if you do, you certainly won't ever see a company try to defend themselves so arrogantly beyond reason as happened in this case. If Apple with their tremendous financial resources couldn't get away with it, then it's likely no one else will be able to. Companies have been warned.