Apple appeals to Supreme Court

[Shane R]

This is not a big deal.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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

What do you mean by that?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What do you mean by that?

It seems to mean that only those who agree with the pundits claiming that Cote ruled incorrectly/inappropriately could possibly have an opinion based on "legality."

But the fact is: pretty-much everyone's opinions in this thread about the "legalities" of it all, are based on someone else's opinions of the legalities of it all. And it's quite natural that those "expert" opinions which happen to coincide with our own preconceived notions would seem more objective and factual to us. It's called confirmation bias.

Choosing to believe an expert's opinion on a subject we have no real expertise in ourselves does not lend our opinions any more credence. It just means we found an expert whose opinion coincides with our own. **NEWSFLASH** Everyone has! There are also legal experts who believe Cote's decision was legally sound. Doesn't make the laymen's opinions who agree with those experts any more or less based in "legality" than those laymen who trust the opinions of experts who believe otherwise.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It seems to mean that only those who agree with the pundits claiming that Cote ruled incorrectly/inappropriately could possibly have an opinion based on "legality."

But the fact is: pretty-much everyone's opinions in this thread about the "legalities" of it all, are based on someone else's opinions of the legalities of it all. And it's quite natural that those "expert" opinions which happen to coincide with our own preconceived notions would seem more objective and factual to us. It's called confirmation bias.

Choosing to believe an expert's opinion on a subject we have no real expertise in ourselves does not lend our opinions any more credence. It just means we found an expert whose opinion coincides with our own. **NEWSFLASH** Everyone has! There are also legal experts who believe Cote's decision was legally sound. Doesn't make the laymen's opinions who agree with those experts any more or less based in "legality" than those laymen who trust the opinions of experts who believe otherwise.

Even legality is nothing more than someone in a position of authority's opinion.
The law is almost a controversial as the Bible or The Donald.

[eschwartz]

Thanks, DD, but I was hoping pwalker8 would be the one to point that out.

I know, I am ever the optimist.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Thanks, DD, but I was hoping pwalker8 would be the one to point that out.

I know, I am ever the optimist.

I think pwalker just likes the soup here. He tries to stir the pot enough.

[PatNY]

I’m glad Apple has decided to appeal because hopefully this will finally mute those who defend their wrongdoing.

My best guess is that SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case, essentially affirming Cote and the circuit court decision. If they hear the case, maybe it will only be to clarify what some feel is a conflict among the lower courts. But I highly doubt SCOTUS ever intended Leegin to protect a vertical player who acts as prime orchestrator of a horizontal price fixing conspiracy the way Apple did. That’s what many of Apple’s defenders fail to grasp – Apple’s unique role in the illegal cartel.

--Pat

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What do you mean by that?

What I mean is that much of the discussion appears to be based on the emotion rather than the actual legalities of the case. Anti-Trust law is one of those odd situations where much of the actual legalities is determined by the courts rather than based on the text of the actual law. The original Sherman anti-trust law by John Sherman, senator from Ohio and brother to William Sherman of Civil War fame, was rather broad and for all practical purposes any large company was guilty of anti-trust under a literal reading of the law. Thus is was quickly limited by the courts to certain situations which have changed over the years.

IMPO, the Apple case is an attempt of the old guard judges to put anti-trust law back as it was before Bork's writings influenced the Supreme Court and was eventually codified by the Leegin decision. Some here seem to see it purely as an Amazon verse publishers and Apple morality play and thus the actually ins and outs of anti-trust law is beside the point.

From a legal point of view, once the Supreme Court decides, then right or wrong, that is the law of the land, unless Congress passes a new law, or the Supreme Court basically reverses themselves in a new case.

[Sydney's Mom]

Thanks for posting this--glad this horse still is alive and kicking!

[Shane R]

In a letter to the justices filed on September 16th, the company’s lawyers requested a little more time to file its formal request for Supreme Court review. Seth Waxman, a solicitor general under Bill Clinton and one of the biggest stars in Supreme Court litigation, promises to finalise the request on behalf of Apple by October the 28th. But in the meantime, Mr Waxman signalled why Apple continues to press the issue."This case presents issues of surpassing importance to the United States economy," Waxman writes. "Dynamic, disruptive entry into new or stagnant markets—the lifeblood of American economic growth—often requires the very type of vertical contracting and conduct that the Second Circuit's rule...condemn[s]."

The extension was gamely granted by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After Apple lays out its full case for Supreme Court review, the justices will decide whether to “grant certiorari,” the technical term for agreeing to hear a case.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...-supreme-court


As I said earlier, not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by PatNY

I’m glad Apple has decided to appeal because hopefully this will finally mute those who defend their wrongdoing.

My best guess is that SCOTUS will refuse to hear the case, essentially affirming Cote and the circuit court decision. If they hear the case, maybe it will only be to clarify what some feel is a conflict among the lower courts. But I highly doubt SCOTUS ever intended Leegin to protect a vertical player who acts as prime orchestrator of a horizontal price fixing conspiracy the way Apple did. That’s what many of Apple’s defenders fail to grasp – Apple’s unique role in the illegal cartel.

--Pat

Hear, hear!

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But the fact is: pretty-much everyone's opinions in this thread about the "legalities" of it all, are based on someone else's opinions of the legalities of it all. And it's quite natural that those "expert" opinions which happen to coincide with our own preconceived notions would seem more objective and factual to us. It's called confirmation bias.

Actually, no. Even layman can understand the law and know that Apple is not directly fighting the anti-trust (collusion) allegations. They're simply claiming that the "ends justified the means." Which means absolutely nothing in a court of law.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Actually, no. Even layman can understand the law and know that Apple is not directly fighting the anti-trust (collusion) allegations. They're simply claiming that the "ends justified the means." Which means absolutely nothing in a court of law.

Actually in the case of anti-trust it does. That is the whole "reason" angle they are trying to attack. Anti-trust is not a black and white law.

[Yolina]

Originally Posted by rcentros

They're simply claiming that the "ends justified the means."

Apple, iKnight in shiny iArmour to rescue the world