“It is not possible. In the market Apple was not even yet a participant, but was going to be, by definition, a RETAILER, a VERTICAL relationship, NOT a HORIZONTAL publisher or wholesaler of eBooks to other retailers. The only way Apple could be in a horizontal conspiracy would be if Apple cooperated with Amazon to fix prices. Apple did NOT at any time approach or discuss pricing with Amazon. “
Uh, Anyone can participate in a horizontal conspiracy. It is all explained in the judgement.
And, again, what part of "Judge Côte ignored the very explicit instructions and guidance established by the US Supreme Court about vertical and horizontal participation, and the differences between Rule of Reason and Rule of Per Se distinctions that MUST BE MADE, and ruled on Apple solely by per se —obviously and deemed illegal—rather than it must be PROVED by overwhelming evidence it's illegal and not for some other reason. . . and that Apple merely has to demonstrate their participation increased competition and that the PRO-competition outweighed any anti-competition components. Before Apple became involved and broke Amazon's anti-competitive predatory pricing, Amazon had more than 90% of the eBook market. After Apple entered the market, Amazon, the big gorilla in the room, the monopolist, had only 60%!
That is prima facile evidence that there WAS INDEED MORE COMPETITION! Apple met the US Supreme Court's tests to be deemed NOT to have participated in anti-competitive corrupt practices, under US CASE LAW which has just as much force as written law under our system of jurisprudence, but Judge Côte IGNORED the law as did the two Judtices of the NY Appelate Court! We have anarchy in our justice system.