It is a falsehood, you made up the specifics of what I said, what I actually said was that I believed they had abandoned most arguments from their opening statement. You
- Couldn't provide their opening statement
- Couldn't provide anything to challenge the Judge's characterisation of Apple's defence
- Now expect me to prove myself correct vs you, who refuses to make any effort.
Classic example of the biased poster who can never admit to making a mistake.
Not only this, but she discusses how under the "rule of reason" that Apple would also fail to win their case
That's a pro forma statement every time a judge invokes the per se exception. If you read some antitrust case law, you'll see that per se illegality is often reversed, and every judge says it would have failed the rule of reason. The fact remains, she did not judge the case under the rule of reason, for which there is a particularly rigorous methodology and analysis. Cote took the shortcut the Supreme Court tells her to avoid except in very specific circumstanmces, circumstances which don't apply to the nascent ebook market.
All the evidence I found is that Dr Miles was augmented by decisions taken immediately after it, with Leegin permitting only a limited type of vertical price restraint not relevant to Appple.
Obviously you have not bothered to read Leegin.
It's called lip service.
Even just quoting excerpts from Leegin shows how carefully you have cherry picked your one sentence 'cite'
The cherry I picked speaks directly to this case—where vertical price restraints allegedly facilitate a horizontal conspiracy, and which Leegin goes out of its way to anticipate, and say that situation is to be judged by the rule of reason. Leegin is a 30 page treatise on price-fixing, giving all the reasons and background for overturning the theoretical formalism of Dr. Miles (automatic illegality) embodied in per se judgments of illegality, and replacing it with the standard that requires actually measuring the benefits and harms of price-fixing before deciding whether it was illegal. Leegin is full of cherries, cherries establishing the principles and guidelines for judging price-fixing schemes, Cote ignores or dismisses the cherries the Supreme Court offers, she is ideologically opposed to them, as is the DoJ. It's not all that unusual for a district judge to go off on a tangent and get it all wrong, but it's a lot less likely that 3 appellate judges will arrive at the same conclusions she did. It is possible that an Appellate Court could also oppose the Supreme Court's new precedent, that only ensures the SC will grant cert when it comes to them.
I doubt the Supreme Court cares whether or not Apple is guilty, but they sure as hell will care that the right standard was used when judging them.
Edited by ruddy - 2/6/14 at 1:17pm