Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Tankwatch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (26506)	7/11/2013 8:36:19 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 32692

I wouldn't own any POS who was found guilty of conspiracy and collusion to harm consumers, on top of taking their ill gotten profits and says FU to the American people by not paying taxes. Glad to know you have no problem with that.

To: puborectalis who wrote (26506)	7/11/2013 9:09:29 AM
From: zax	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32692

>> no different than any other company..... That's pretty weak, pubo. One might have expected more from you. This was the sort of outright, consumer damaging conspiracy that the Sherman anti-trust act was created for. You can never say “there’s a good reason for my cartel.” That’s not how Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act [which deals with cartels] works. Under standard U.S. antitrust law, it’s not a good defense to say we’ve organized our cartel to beat up on the monopolist. How Amazon prices particular items is really complicated. I don’t assume that Amazon is doing something that would give rise to a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act [dealing with monopolies]. To the extent that Amazon has monopoly power, as long as it’s achieved that power through legitimate means, you get to exercise that monopoly power. washingtonpost.com Apple is going to be made an example of, and rightly so.