That is not what I've read, but rather it merely allows Apple to match lower prices elsewhere for the same product, so I still don't see how this could be price fixing.
The publishers even before Apple arrived tried various steps to change their deals with Amazon and let it sell for more, they just haven't had any negotiation power.
From the court document:
"Well aware of the Publishers’ experimentation with windowing, Apple also told Publishers that it opposed windowing; it believed that withholding e-books alienated customers and led to piracy."
It was one attempt of the publishers before.
This makes it very clear: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/07/10/a-jud...
And how was Apple doing anything what the publishers didn't do themselves? The CEO's had their meetings without Apple, even before, as I've already quoted. And after the meetings with Cue, they continued. Cue didn't organize them:
"After Young had met with Apple but before S&S had its meeting, Young could not resist calling Reidy to share the wonderful news that the “Top Man” at Apple opposed $9.99 pricing. He hesitated to say more because S&S would be meeting with Apple the following day, and he did not want to “spoil [the] fun.”"
It's obvious the publishers communicated, but I don't see Apple's guilt.
All my quotes here and in other posts here are from the court decision.
[0] http://allthingsd.com/20130515/heres-that-steve-jobs-e-book-...
It's like it was written as an admission.
If that still did not convince you, then I don't see the point discussing it further.
Note that antitrust laws are there to protect consumers.
All of your quotes here and in other posts are cherry picking form the court decision to much your beliefs.
Read the 160 pages of the ruling and then post. But it seems that nothing will change your views
Exactly, and I quote the exact formulation of MFN from the court's decision in my other (possibly harder to read) comment here.