@arebee ah, ok. Yeah, there was a legitimate case there (and against Intel too)
-
-
Replying to @benthompson
@monkbent You've got it backwards. Microsoft wasn't trying to raise prices whereas the Apple case explicitly was.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benthompson
@monkbent relative to the prices paid by Amazon ebook customers. Loss leading isn't illegal in the US. Ask any supermarket.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benthompson
@monkbent You're right - it was the conspiracy, the "trust" in anti-trust.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benthompson
@monkbent What tweaks you about this? That Apple is involved? Cross subsidy or loss leading? I'd point you to the iTunes box set sales. ;-)5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benthompson
@monkbent I read your bio :-) You used to intern at Apple too? It was a question - many people are tweaked that Apple were convicted.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.