Quote:
Originally Posted by leebase
Hold on....your quotes back my point. The difference is Apple and the publishers should have sued Amazon instead of colluding. It doesn’t state that Amazon wasn’t price dumping.
I think the judges position that it doesn’t matter if competitors are hurt if prices are lowered for consumers...is naive. Selling goods below cost because you have more access to capitol than all the competition....is harmful. Customers aren’t getting a lower price due to some more efficient process. Amazon just ate the difference. They wouldn’t have done so forever. They might not have raised prices....they just would have told publishers to take less per book. And with most of the book sellers run out of business...publishers would have been powerless to fight. Which is WHY the publishers had to fight when they did. None of which was given consideration by judge Koh. All of which might well come under revue now
|
If I recall correctly, Cote explicitly refused to allow evidence of Amazon's actions to be presented saying that it was not germane to the case and if Apple thought that Amazon was engaged in anti-trust actions they should have sued.
While two of the appeals judges did uphold Cote, the other appeal judge, Jacobs, expressly blasted Amazon for their actions in the case saying that Amazon was rather obviously guilty of anti-trust actions.
But hey, that's what lawyers do, cherry pick opinions that back their case while ignoring the ones that refute their case. A lawyer's job is to win the case by any legal means possible.