There appears to be an interesting analogy between this case and the Apple store. In each, the company flexes monopoly power over their customers -- Apple in selling apps to idevice users (traditionally an open market) and John Deere in repairing tractors. Neither has a complete monopoly on (tractors, phones, apps for phones, tractor repair) but the monopoly is within their sector of a market. Very curious to see how this plays out, as Deere's fortune may set a precedent that impacts Apple's fate.
I don't think having a monopoly should be a requirement to take legal action against nasty practices in general. If somebody is beating his wife, should that be ignored because, you know, she can move out?
What??? The existence of a law against any specific or general act is necessary for taking legal action. Your unnecessarily crude example is a violation of an existing law. Box checked. It's not a violation of the Sherman Act (Clayton Act, FTC Act), so let's stop talking about that example, thanks.
The question in the air in these cases is whether Deere, Apple, etc. are violations of specific anti-trust laws -- the language of those law is intentionally open-ended, and there isn't a ton of case-law. Thus, these cases have a high chance of setting precedent.
Now, it seems that what you're suggesting is that we should be able to punish companies, people, etc for being "bad" just because we know it's "bad." This sort of "justice" is literally arbitrary, and leads to incredible injustices. The closest remedies we have as a people, if this behavior is found to not violate existing anti-trust laws, is to persuade Congress to pass new laws (good luck), pass a constitutional amendment (nope), or to wage a class-action suit (here's your gift certificate for a can of beans).
The decent counterargument is that your proposed system of law isn't one of law at all. It's arbitrary and capricious. It violates all recognized standards of due process.
Under your system, there is no way of knowing whether what you are doing is legal or not.
For example, how would you feel if tomorrow you were hauled to jail for incitement toward an ex post facto law? Ex post facto laws are widely recognized as being morally reprehensible. Surely you should have been on notice that it's illegal to push for one, right?
The creation of such laws is only a matter of (perhaps very long) time. You think this is an "arbitrary" viewpoint? Fine, give me your best argument why what John Deere is doing is "good".
No, I think that John Deere is in violation of antitrust law. Apple, too. And I'm hoping that judges agree with me. And if not, I would hope that Congress could pass laws that Apple and Deere would be made to follow -- would and could, because I have little faith in the legislative branch at this time.
Punishing because it feels right is what I take issue with. Punishing on the basis of a violated law is, at least, above-board.
I thought about it. Maybe it's a cultural difference. Maybe you're right, at least when it comes to right now and American society. Sorry if my comments seem crude or inconsiderate.
