Posted on 03/07/2016 8:00:43 AM PST by Swordmaker
“The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from Apple Inc. and left in place a ruling that the company conspired with publishers to raise electronic book prices when it sought to challenge Amazon.com’s dominance of the market,” The Associated Press reports.
“The justices’ order on Monday lets stand an appeals court ruling that found Cupertino, California-based Apple violated antitrust laws in 2010,” AP reports. “The 2-1 ruling by the New York-based appeals court sustained a trial judge’s finding that Apple orchestrated an illegal conspiracy to raise prices. A dissenting judge called Apple’s actions legal, ‘gloves-off competition.'”
“Apple Inc. must pay $450 million to end an antitrust suit after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to question a finding that the company orchestrated a scheme to raise the prices for electronic books,” Greg Stohr reports for Bloomberg. “The accord calls for Apple to pay $400 million to e-book consumers, $20 million to the states, and $30 million in legal fees.”
“At the Supreme Court, Apple argued that its actions enhanced competition by providing consumers with a new e-book platform. The company said overall e-book prices have fallen in the years since the introduction of iBookstore [sic],” Stohr reports. “‘Following Apple’s entry, output increased, overall prices decreased, and a major new retailer began to compete in a market formerly dominated by a single firm,’ the company said in its appeal.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Travesty. Justice was not served in this case.
Actually, it’s consistently been you using words like “idiot” and others I won’t repeat here. I actually have a PhD in Electrical Engineering from one of the top engineering schools. I don’t really feel compelled to refute your poorly reasoned arguments on topics you really don’t understand. No, I am more than content to follow your posts and laigh at the rants, borderline fits of rage, and rampant unreasoned fanboy-ism you emit in a seemingly continual stream.
Have a nice day.
Score! Sword is a blowhard!
“No, Judge Jacobs did NOT say that, the SUPREME COURT of the United States sets what the LAW IS”
Uh, Congress and the President sets the Law.
“If you want to go with the “LETTER OF THE LAW,” how is it that Judge Denise Cote can assess a $450,000,000 fine on Apple instead of the “not to exceed $100,000,000” fine absolutely written in the law? “
And you claim to be informed on this. LOL
Apple was faced with filings from 33 states and many class actions. Apple agreed to a settlement to minimize their losses.
“A HORIZONTAL conspiracy among competitors at any level to raise prices was ALWAYS to be considered a (per se restraint of trade on its face and the BURDEN OF PROOF is much lower. “
er, Apple engaged in a horizontal conspiracy.
” Such market realities are driving the evolution of antitrust law”
I see you are proponent of ‘living laws’. Are you also a proponent of a ‘living constitution’?
“how is it that Judge Denise Cote can assess a $450,000,000 fine “
I saw no criminal conviction or fine ...
“What the US Supreme Court RULED in the 2007 case of Leegin, 551 U.S., which invalidates ALL CASE LAW THAT PREDATES IT, was how to determine if a particular act WAS or WAS NOT a restraint of TRADE OR “
hmmmmm.... I go with a lawyer over an economist.
http://www.law360.com/articles/674102/apple-e-books-court-sticks-landing-with-tough-antitrust-test
“”I don’t think there’s the slightest support for that,” said Spencer Weber Waller, a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. “He’s putting a lot of emphasis on one line out of context from Leegin. There’s no reason think [the Supreme Court] intended to blow up 100 years of jurisprudence.”
“The US Supreme Court required in Leegin that the Rule of Reason had to apply and that for any company to be found not guilty of restraint of trade, they merely had to show their participation INCREASED COMPETION.”
Leegin was a pure vertical agreement. Does not apply to horizontal agreements.
“Not being an economists, neither of you would understand that consumer advantages are NOT necessarily measure solely by low prices. “
It is not the courts duty to decide what is an advantage to consumers thus this has no merit in the case.
“This is what happens when the LIBERALS dominate the Court. “
I believe that it was Judge Jacobs that lead the decision that DOMA was unconstitutional.
Then Apple needn't pay anything. There are no "damages" here. This is a fine being distributed. That is the ONLY penalty that can be adjudicated other than jail time, which long ago was dropped. You are dancing around trying to continue your argument about the "letter" of the law, ignoring CASE law. There were no "plaintiffs" asserting they were damaged by a tort. It was a case brought by the GOVERNMENT claiming a violation of the law had been committed.
You have ONE article you link to from LAW360 which claims that some "antitrust" lawyers claim that the US Supreme Court did not intend to "blow up" 100 years of jurisprudence with Leegin but that is exactly what they said in their written opinion and the REASON for making the dichotomy between vertical and horizontal involvement. That is what SUPREME COURT DECISIONS DO. That's why they get paid to make the decisions. If it was so easy, there would be NEED for the US Supreme Court to even be involved! Just apply the 100 years of jurisprudence, rotate the cogs of justice, and out comes the decision. If it were that simple, cases such as Leegin would NEVER reach the Supreme Court to make a new determination of WHY there was a question to be decided. The reason was that there WAS a difference between a vertical involvement and a horizontal conspiracy and the US Supreme Court MADE THAT DETERMINATION, and then went on to TELL the lower courts how to make that determination. They spelled it out. . . and explicitly explained WHY. There was no lack of context as Spencer Weber Waller claims. Done.
i've read papers criticizing Waller's conclusions as well. . . from law professors who sided strongly with Jacobs.
Judge Jacobs did not just rely on Leegin but also cited several other US Supreme Court decisions with the SAME distinctions from the 2000s. You have NOT read the other opinions of the other two judges at all. They both ignored the explicit instructions of the US Supreme Court and those words were NOT taken out of context but were quite explicit. I went and read Leegin. What you have is the difference between LIBERAL lawyers, who prefer the old per se rules of slash and burn every body just has to be guilty, no matter what, as a LIBERAL antibusiness, anti-trust attorney who makes his money seeing antitrust violations everywhere he looks, and the Conservative Jacobs who prefers the Rule of Reason as written by Justice Scalia.
Now, I am not going to waste anymore time discussing this with you. You show no understanding of this at all. . . you do not even understand what TYPE of case this is.
That is why I am not going to waste any more of my time on you. You do not understand the LAW at all. You do not understand how the law works, not a whit. The constitution is not a living thing, but the law itself does evolve and has to, because society, business, technology, and human interaction CHANGES in response to all of that. . . and the law has to recognize those changes.
Or do you believe that it is still OK for New York City to require every automobile entering the city to be required to be preceded by a man on a horse carrying a red flag? That was still on the books as of 1985. . . and was used to arrest a man the police wanted to jail and hold for 72 hours while they got some other evidence. After arrest, they kept bouncing him from precinct to precinct after he made his one phone call to his lawyer. By the time his attorney found him and got him released, the police had the evidence they wanted. The horse/red flag ordinance was finally removed in a general house cleaning a couple of years later. . . evolution of the LAW.
Or, perhaps, you like the LAW that required headlights on every automobile to be sealed beam incandescents. Oh, your car has halogens? Mine has LEDs. Neither one meets that Sealed Beam incandescent LAW! Gee, TexasGator, the law has evolved. How in hell did THAT happen? In your world, it can't have happened.
Do you remember me telling you that the WRITTEN antitrust law did not say that price fixing was a form of illegal activity? CASE LAW established that. . . established by a JUDGE, making a determination that it was misbehavior of a monopolist to keep competition out. . . and then issuing a RULING it was so, that survived appeals and then going all the way to the Supreme Court. It evolved as the ways of offending evolved. . . and the law also evolves as it learns the LAW makes mistakes, as in the case of Leegin, in which case, it needs to adjust itself, so as to not keep making the same mistake again.
Some people LIKE the mistaken law.
Your PhD in Electrical Engineering makes me respect you in Electrical Engineering. It does not make me respect your opinion on Law, Economics, or many other things. I do have many areas of expertise. I am also quite skilled in logic. . . and can reason quite well. I can hold my own against the likes of you. I use "idiot" against those who start using ad hominems against me. Argue politely with me, you will get politeness back. Use snide, snarky, left-handed derisive comments, denigrating me, you'll get the same back. You did that, instead of actually discussing the topic. Address the topic with facts, you'll get the respect you deserve. Don't just toss spit wads. Your last sentence says it all. You don't address anything factual. When I post something I am prepared to back it up with evidence. I don't see the same from you.
More lies. You seem to do that a lot. You also seem to spend significant time and effort telling everyone how great you are. Some unsolicited advice: if you have to tell them, it isn’t so.
A quick review of your posts over literally any time period shows a pattern of insults, posts with frequent upper case or bold face text (i.e. shouting) , and often in reply to the most benign and mild posts.
You are quite obviously someone with deep emotional problems and some serious anger management issues - possibly compensating for physical weakness or other inadequacies in your offline life.
You prove my point when you post idiotic graphics like your insulting and juvenile little ad hominem certificate which does NOTHING to forward any discussion or add anything of value to FreeRepublic but stoke YOUR apparently self perceived inadequacies!
Your little innuendos are twaddle. Your attempts at denigrating me are ridiculous. . . your Apple Hate spills over into attacking people with whom you disagree, but who can prove you wrong with evidence. . . so you feel the need to denigrate them to make you feel better.
Do you feel better about yourself now having posted that? If so, good.
Because of a lifetime career doing many things, like many other business people with many business interests, I had a WALL of legitimate certificates, plaques, and awards for my lifetime of accomplishments from governmental bodies, organizations, and societies attesting to my service organizations, to my community, and my academic awards . . . quite a few of them personally awarded to me by people such as Governor and later President Ronald Reagan, other community dignitaries, mayors, County Supervisors, school administrators, Religious organizations, legislative proclamations (one from the California State Senate), a letter from the senior judge of my county's Superior Courts for serving as Foreman of our county's first Criminal Grand Jury in twenty-five years thanking me for my service—a position I held for a year, various honorary awards for founding a charity I ran for twenty-six years (over those years that charity helped over four million people and sixteen years after I stepped down is still going strong and growing), leading this or that charity drive, heading this or that community service committee, serving as president or other officer of this or that service organization, being on this or that organizing committee, raising and donating the funds to build this or that building, photos me with this or that prominent local, state, or national political figure, or a photo of me performing in Carnegie Hall with a Choral group where I was bass section leader (and President of the Board of Directors), etc., etc., etc.
I long ago put them in a trunk because they were just gathering dust and I decided I'd rather look at some excellent artwork than my ego inflaters.
I hired Electrical Engineers with PhDs and other degrees.
More insults from the peanut gallery PhD
You are an asshat who came into this thread and your first post was not to comment on the merits of the discussion, the merits of the case, or even the law.
You came onto this thread to solely to post insult after insult toward me.
First post:Oh, you are an economist now? Just last week you were telling us all that you’re a CEO. Where’s your degree(s) from?
Second post:
Uh huh. Big talk. I think you’re just some loser living in mom’s basement.
Third Post:
Looks like I was able to locate your actual degree with a simple Internet search. Here's an image:
(INSULT IMAGE
Fourth Post
Actually, it’s consistently been you using words like “idiot” and others I won’t repeat here. I actually have a PhD in Electrical Engineering from one of the top engineering schools. I don’t really feel compelled to refute your poorly reasoned arguments on topics you really don’t understand. No, I am more than content to follow your posts and laugh at the rants, borderline fits of rage, and rampant unreasoned fanboy-ism you emit in a seemingly continual stream.
Fifth Post:
More lies. You seem to do that a lot. You also seem to spend significant time and effort telling everyone how great you are. Some unsolicited advice: if you have to tell them, it isn’t so.
A quick review of your posts over literally any time period shows a pattern of insults, posts with frequent upper case or bold face text (i.e. shouting) , and often in reply to the most benign and mild posts.
You are quite obviously someone with deep emotional problems and some serious anger management issues - possibly compensating for physical weakness or other inadequacies in your offline life.
Five posts and everyone of them not responsive to the topic, but insulting to the original poster of the thread, me. Obviously you are not here in this thread for any serious discussion. You are here only to throw spit wads and feces at me. That makes you a thread troll and an asshat idiot. Proves my point quite well.
Uh, I have to just start
ROTFLMAO!
at that!
Pardon me while I gasp for breath at that whopper of yours. . . would that it were true, in this instance!
Aren't you the one who just commented about the Defense of Marriage Act?
Do you want to repeat that comment about "Congress and the President sets the Law" in light of DOMA and the US Supreme Court's upholding the lower court's finding that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Doe it not seems that the US Supreme Court RULED what the law of the land is right now vis-a-vis Same-Sex-Marriage without the benefit of the Congress' and the President's input?
If not, can you point me to the Bill passed by either house of the Congress and signed by the President of the United States legalizing Same-Sex-Marriage??? Please provide the Public Law number and year it was passed. I REALLY want to read it.
Based on your tirade, I must have really hit the nail on the head. You’ve done a good job of cementing my opinion that you’re compensating for your real world inadequacies with a poorly constructed online fantasy world.
I suggest you do a similar search for your own posts, and see how many times you are calling others “idiots” or worse. I’m just injecting some humor into the equation after observing your near constant stream of insults to others here.
The butthurt is strong with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.