Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
I'm not going to bother even trying to correct your profound misunderstanding of your own country's anti-trust law. Let's assume that the majority judges in the Appeal did indeed make an error in applying one of your two "anti-trust approaches". That error does not dictate the result. What it would then mean is that the rule of reason should have been applied. And guess what? The majority were kind enough to consider what would have happened had the per se rule not applied. Jacob's in the minority applied the rule of reason very superficially because he thought it was obvious that Apple's behaviour did not harm consumers. There are many even on these forums who beg to differ and welcomed their compensation cheques. Livingstone considered and applied the rule of reason and came to the contrary conclusion. Lohier, the other member of the majority, considered only one factor which he thought was alone decisive against Apple's argument. This was the judicial vigilantism argument referred to in my previous post. As I recall the original Judge also considered a rule of reason analysis in case of error on the per se approach. To summarise, 3 of the 4 experienced judges involved in the matter decided the per se approach applied, but nevertheless considered the rule of reason would not have saved Apple. On neither of your two approaches would Apple have succeeded.
I'm not going to bother correcting your misunderstandings of Leegin, which are quite obvious if you read (and understand) the majority judgement. Unfortunately your errors and misunderstandings in this area are so many that I simply aren't inclined at the moment to expend any further time in trying to correct them. One of the great things about these forums is that we can test our views and sometimes even bring ourselves to correct them when obviously in error. Please think about it.
|
Yea, right. I have so many errors that you aren't going to point them out, which of course, might actually require something other than a breezy "you are so wrong". Now, it could be that Jacobs actually took the time to look at the evidence presented at the trial and ignored by Cote rather than just read Cote's opinion and that is why he thought that consumers were not harmed. Certainly, Apple presented studies that countered Amazon's study.
Sure a lot of posters here feel they were harmed, but are you harmed because you can't by an iPhone for what you pay for a cheap Korean, Chinese or Indian smart phone? That doesn't even go into the idea (which is central to Jacob's point) that when a monopoly has 90% of the market, then any competition is likely to help the consumer long term.
The most famous anti-trust suit in US history was Standard Oil, who would sell oil at a loss in markets where they had competition, while using profits in markets without competition to subsidize the practice. Maybe Jacobs just knows his history a little bit better. (just as a note, at that time we are talking about Kerosene rather than gasoline since there were few cars at the time).