or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Pendergast

In your world, I suppose that construction workers are totally invent buildings, and architects have nothing to do with it right?And Apple does have patents on retina displays, and on the software that makes it work (and not just shrink everything down).But whatever. I mean a shill's gotta eat.
5G will be developed by a host of companies, just like any standard.
Wrong, foundries =/= designing, hence why Apple can have its proprietary displays, chips, etc manufactured anywhere. Some manufactures do a better job.
  Isn't it just an import ban? Is Apple still making (and importing) the iPhone 4 or iPad 2?   Nothing against selling any existing stock, if there is any.
  It's a fair question, Mr. Internet lawyer.
  Fine.   You keep saying Leegin doesn't help Apple. I never said that it did.    The reason I referenced it is because since this case began, several people keep saying that Apple is guilty of price fixing. Which is not what they are being , mind you, and even then, "price fixing" is not necessarily illegal. Since price fixing used to ALWAYS be illegal, Leegin is an important reference.    I'm saying it has a bearing on the discussion not the case itself, since Apple is...
  None of this applies to Apple, it applies to the PUBLISHER(S).   Apple is being accused of being part of the publishers alleged conspiracy.    The principles of Leegin would apply to the publishers, as the agency model is in essence price fixing — i.e. the manufacturer sets the price, and the retailer has to comply.    I referenced it, because everyone keeps yelling PRICE FIXING!!! when that's not the issue. The issue is, and has always been, alleged collusion between...
  Interesting, but I would say it is applicable in that RPM is no longer always illegal, and the principles apply in this case, since the publishers are essentially manufacturers.   EDIT: Also, none of this needs to be applicable to Apple; it is applicable to the publishers. Apple is being accused of aiding the conspiracy of the publishers, being involved.      "The Court gave examples of situations where such pricing agreements will be particularly treacherous....
  He could have known about the MFN clause, which would mean Apple's price couldn't be higher than anyone else's, without knowing specifics.   It's not like he said, "Amazon's will also be $14.99".
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2003767332_retail29.html
New Posts  All Forums: