Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
I didn't take that suggestion from your post. I think we both understand and accept that we all have our own opinions and ways of doing things and there is generally no right or wrong way. We tend to do what works for us.
My aim is not to punish an author, but this does of course happen in the course of venting my displeasure at the way some publishers are pricing their books. But at the end of the day if I'm choosing between two books and one is twice or three times more expensive I expect to see a significant difference in quality. I don't. Others do, which is fine by me. I'm very happy with the current situation as I'm buying more books, borrowing more books and reading more books at significantly less cost. If I was finding Indie Books to be of materially inferior quality then I too would tend to avoid most of them. Each to their own.
In anti-trust law at least two wrongs don't make a right. A murder does not entitle the relatives of the victim to form a posse and legally execute the perpetrator. They can report the matter to the police and/or sue civilly. Such is the case here. If Amazon was engaging in unlawful behaviour the publishers should have complained to the DOJ and or sued themselves. Not acted as vigilantes and entered into an unlawful price-fixing conspiracy.
The majority addressed Jacob's dissent and his finding you quote specifically and devastatingly.
With all respect to Jacob he got it badly wrong. Even the best of us can do that. His colleagues on the Appeals Court found he got it badly wrong. They explained why very clearly in the passages above. The Supreme Court elected not to grant cert.
|
Once again, I point out that US law is not the same as Commonwealth law. I keep pointing you to sources, but you don't seem interested in educating yourself on the matter. Anti-trust law in the US has two very different schools of thought. If you accept the one school of thought, that anti-trust's purpose is to protect consumers and competition, then Jacob's ruling was devastatingly correct and got to the heart of the matter.
As far as the red herring about the Supreme Court electing not to hear the case, i.e. grant cert, that once again shows a lack of understanding of how the Supreme Court works. Just because the Supreme Court decides not to hear a case, doesn't mean that they think it was decided correctly. It simply means that they chose not to hear it which could be for a number of reasons. Once again, I've already pointed you to a number of sources that discuss the various reasons that the Supreme Court might choose to hear or not hear a case, but you seem to have decided to ignore those.