Apple Fires Back at DoJ - Publishers' Weekly

Let me out of here.

Panzer was tootling around in the Catosphere when he noticed a pungent smell coming through the ventilation system. Following the odor took our fearless kitty pilot to the Publishers' Weekly site. Since a cat's nose can smell things seven times stronger than a human's nose, our kitty boy put on a gas mask before he left the Panzermobile. But even wearing the mask without any digging at all he discovered a post about the ongoing saga of Apple's price-fixing conviction.
 
According to the post by Andrew Albanese, Apple's attorneys have filed more paperwork (called a brief) with the Supreme Court again rebutting their original conviction of ebook price-fixing. After reviewing Apple's and the DoJ's briefs and the amicus briefs from seven of Apple's supporters, the Supreme Court will decide if they will accept Apple's appeal for consideration. If the Supreme Court does not agree to review the case, Apple's court fight should be over. However, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, the Court could rule in favor of Apple (basically "not guilty of price-fixing"), in favor of the DoJ (basically "guilty of price-fixing") or send the case back to the lower courts to re-do (basically "a do-over").

Panzer says, "Note on the legal stuff: Look ... I'm a cat, not an attorney ... So all that human legal mumbo jumbo is just to best of what my kitty brain understands. Don't go into court and quote me ... Unless it's a cat court of course."

Note: One cup of tea for today's reading.

To read the post, tootle over to Apple