On June 30, the Second Circuit affirmed DOJ’s trial victory over Apple in the Ebooks Case. The three-judge panel fractured in an interesting way: two judges affirmed the finding that Apple’s role in a “hub and spokes” conspiracy was unlawful per se; one judge also would have found a rule-of-reason violation; and the dissent — stating Apple had a “vertical” position and was challenging the leading seller’s “monopoly” — would have found no liability at all. What is the reasoning and precedent of the decision? Is “marketplace vigilantism” (the concurring judge’s phrase) ever justified? Fiona Scott Morton is a panelist during this webinar and will debate the issues.
For more information on this event, click here.
New research analyzes the impact of hazardous waste management on US economic growth
Improper management of hazardous waste can contaminate soil and drinking water, release toxic air pollutants, and create serious health risks for exposed...