Apple appeals to Supreme Court

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The point is that whither or not what Apple did is illegal depends if you use the per se definition of anti-trust as Cote did, or you use the rule of reason definition of anti-trust, as the Supreme Court instructed in Leegan. In anti-trust, your market position is extremely important. Apple had no market position since they had not entered into the market yet.

That depends on your definition of market position. Sure, ebooks they didn't have a whole lot, but they had other forms of entertainment (e.g. music). Digital music in iTunes has and had a big chunk of the market - not a monopoly, but neither does Amazon have one. Apple bullied their way into ebooks by leaning against the publishers with their weight of success with music.

[dickloraine]

I have no clue about law, but aren't there criteria what to appy - per se or reason? And even if reason should have been applied, there is no way now to know if this would have resulted in apple not being proofed guilty. You know, just because reason should be applied doesn't mean what apple did was actually in reason.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

I have no clue about law, but aren't there criteria what to appy - per se or reason? And even if reason should have been applied, there is no way now to know if this would have resulted in apple not being proofed guilty. You know, just because reason should be applied doesn't mean what apple did was actually in reason.

Actually, Judge Cote's opinion covered the "reason" approach.

She said her ruling was based on the facts and that that alone proved them guilty. Then she did an aside and said that if one applied the "reason" approach...they would still be found guilty and explained it.
At the appeals court, one judge said that only per se applied and rule of reason was inapplicable; the second judge said Cote was right to consider rule of reason (and agreed with her full ruling) and the third judge "reasoned" a path to effectively saying antitrust doesn't apply, facts be damned.

At this point Apple's appeal is more about showmanship than law. But it might backfire. The Court might take the case to reverse itself and make price maintenance illegal once more, having seen how it has been used to stiffle horizontal competition.

Some sleeping dogs should not be nudged.

[kennyc]

but....
FACT: Apple once had more operating cash in the bank than the U.S. Treasury.

In June of 2011, the U.S. government had an operating cash balance of $73.8 billion, while Apple boasted a whopping $76.2 billion.....

He who controls the gold...controls...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The point is that whither or not what Apple did is illegal depends if you use the per se definition of anti-trust as Cote did, or you use the rule of reason definition of anti-trust, as the Supreme Court instructed in Leegan. In anti-trust, your market position is extremely important. Apple had no market position since they had not entered into the market yet.

And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Cote Decision, will you finally admit that Apple broke the law?

[DiapDealer]

My guess is no.

Spoiler:

Per se

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Cote Decision, will you finally admit that Apple broke the law?

Not holding my breath.
Last dying gasp won't be "Rosebud".

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Cote Decision, will you finally admit that Apple broke the law?

I've already said that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the law. Said that in this forum over a year ago. If the Supreme Court overturns, will you finally admit that Apple did not break the law?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Not holding my breath.
Last dying gasp won't be "Rosebud".

I would hope not, given how long it will take for the case to be heard and a decision announced, assuming that Apple does indeed appeal. Of course, I rather doubt that you would be willing to admit that what Apple did was perfectly legal if the courts decide that way.

[dickloraine]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I would hope not, given how long it will take for the case to be heard and a decision announced, assuming that Apple does indeed appeal. Of course, I rather doubt that you would be willing to admit that what Apple did was perfectly legal if the courts decide that way.

Legal then maybe. But "perfectly"? If it were perfectly legal, there wouldn't have been a trial in the first place, a guilty from a judge and a guilty from the first revision.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

Legal then maybe. But "perfectly"? If it were perfectly legal, there wouldn't have been a trial in the first place, a guilty from a judge and a guilty from the first revision.

Methinks you don't understand how things work in this legal system of ours.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rcentros

The headline is misleading. Apple has asked for 30 day extension so they can (potentially) file. They're still trotting out the old "we used anti-trust because Amazon was too powerful" argument. I don't think the "end justifies the means" argument will work -- but the Supreme Court decisions have been pretty wonky lately (they think it's their right to write laws now), so I guess Apple figures why not give a shot.

They didn't hurt Amazon. Who they hurt is the little guy like Fictionwise, BooksOnBoard & Diesel. Apple should go down for the count. Using Amazon as an excuse is BS.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I've already said that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the law. Said that in this forum over a year ago. If the Supreme Court overturns, will you finally admit that Apple did not break the law?

If the Supreme Court overturns, it just means that some of the Justices are corrupt. We know some are. Look at the ones who voted that corporations are people too. Those are the ones we have to get rid of.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I've already said that the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of the law. Said that in this forum over a year ago. If the Supreme Court overturns, will you finally admit that Apple did not break the law?

No I wouldn't, but only because I would have died of shock. Either that or started looking for the hidden cameras and if that failed begin to seriously entertain the idea that I have been transported to a parallel universe generated by the Infinite Improbability Drive.


(Obviously, in the parallel universe Apple didn't break the law. But I wouldn't bother admitting it when I could instead use that time to research multiverse theory in the hope of traveling back. And anyway, I couldn't admit it to you, only to an alternate copy of you.)

[pwalker8]

Pretty much like I thought, but at least some of you will admit that you have an opinion unsullied by the actual legalities.