Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

googleplaydevelopersettlement.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#61

Post by Ensorceled »

nine_k wrote: post #8
capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

I'm too lazy to dive into the proceedings proper. How did the suit handle the presence of sideloading from arbitrary sources, and the fact that F-Droid is alive and somehow popular? Or was it mostly about in-app purchases?

It's a settlement, what proceedings? The only proceedings would be the court approving the class action status. What does sideloading or F-Droid have to do with anything?

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#62

Post by Ensorceled »

DannyBee wrote: post #37
capableweb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the judicial system is just another version of the financial system, another extension of capitalism rather than being about actual justice?

Civil litigation is just a dispute resolving mechanism, not a right/wrong decider.

There are a LOT of people in this discussion who REALLY want it to be wrong decider and punisher ...

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#63

Post by _23sd »

midoridensha wrote: post #4
capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. That said, how does Google monopolize Android app distribution? You're free to install APKs yourself. So why isn't Apple being prosecuted? There's no such ability on that platform. Why does it always feel like Google is constantly being hounded about stuff that Apple gets off sco…

I would much prefer if more people settled their disputes without going to court. If they go to court and settle later, that's less great but still more productive than years of litigation.

>So why isn't Apple being prosecuted?

They had a nearly identical settlement in 2021 [1], main difference is that the Google settlement applies to developers with revenues up to $2 million in a year while the Apple one is up to $1 million.

[1] https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#64

Post by paulryanrogers »

ABCLAW wrote: post #44
capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

>Like how is it not an admission of wrongdoing if you finally say "Ok, I'll give you money for this problem to go away". Because an admission could be used against you in future litigation, thus defeating the purpose of settling in the first place. Settlement functions as a method of allowing litigants to liquidate their conflicts without wasting court resources and expending exorbitant amounts of money going through…

There is a risk that settling sweeps chronic, bad behavior under the rug. Which is especially bad when powerful actors can use settlement to coerce victims into hiding the truth, and enabling future bad behaviors.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#65

Post by chongli »

thrwawy74 wrote: post #60
DannyBee wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. " God no. For starters, civil litigation does not have a goal of proving right or wrong, but settling disputes between two parties. This is actually a good thing. But what you are suggesting goes against the very basis of civil litigation systems :). You see the same thing in sa…

I think the courts are meant to settle disputes quickly, not justly. The appearance of swift justice.

Read Plato's Republic. Justice is an extremely fraught concept that has been debated for millennia. The ultimate purpose of courts is to keep society running smoothly, not uphold justice. Justice can never really be upheld because people disagree on its definition. That would be like trying to get everyone to agree on the best ice cream flavour.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#66

Post by DannyBee »

thrwawy74 wrote: post #60
DannyBee wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. " God no. For starters, civil litigation does not have a goal of proving right or wrong, but settling disputes between two parties. This is actually a good thing. But what you are suggesting goes against the very basis of civil litigation systems :). You see the same thing in sa…

I think the courts are meant to settle disputes quickly, not justly. The appearance of swift justice.

Justice is not a well shared concept, so that's basically impossible anyway.

Beyond that, this is actually right. For civil disputes, the main historical goal has always been compensation for injuries/damages. That's it.

Speed is actually a goal because you want people to be put back into a good place as fast as possible.

Otherwise, the goal of a number is reasonable. Not perfect. Just reasonable.

Again, it's a dispute resolving system. One that was mainly meant to be used when all other forms of negotiation/mediation fail.

So it was not meant as a system of first resort, it's a system of last resort.

Trying to use it for social change/et al is a relatively new concept.

The ability for a corporation or whatever to cause widespread injury to a large class of people is a relatively new thing. As a result, mass torts were historically uncommon, etc.

Like maybe a building fell down or something, but even if someone sued someone else because all their cattle died after their neighbor seemed to put something in the water didn't affect (and couldn't be detected to affect) anywhere near as many people as happens now.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#67

Post by blihp »

nine_k wrote: post #8
capableweb wrote: post #2

> A settlement has been reached with Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited, Google Asia Pacific Pte. Limited, and Google Payment Corp. (“Google”) in an antitrust class action lawsuit about the Google Play store. The lawsuit was brought by U.S. app developers. The lawsuit alleged that Google monopolized (or attempted to monopolize) alleged markets related to the distribution of Android OS apps an…

I'm too lazy to dive into the proceedings proper. How did the suit handle the presence of sideloading from arbitrary sources, and the fact that F-Droid is alive and somehow popular? Or was it mostly about in-app purchases?

It was just about Google Play policies from 2016-2021. App Developers get a pro rata share of the settlement fund based on the commissions they paid Google during that period. It's basically a partial return of commissions over 15%. I for one plan to live a life of excess with mine: a hamburger with cheese and all the toppings. (assuming I even get that much)

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#68

Post by largbae »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #64
ABCLAW wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Like how is it not an admission of wrongdoing if you finally say "Ok, I'll give you money for this problem to go away". Because an admission could be used against you in future litigation, thus defeating the purpose of settling in the first place. Settlement functions as a method of allowing litigants to liquidate their conflicts without wasting court resources and expending exorbitant amounts of money going through…

There is a risk that settling sweeps chronic, bad behavior under the rug. Which is especially bad when powerful actors can use settlement to coerce victims into hiding the truth, and enabling future bad behaviors.

It absolutely does that... but the victim(s) sign the settlement, so it seems they are not ready to die on that hill.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#69

Post by scotty79 »

DannyBee wrote: post #36
midoridensha wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. That said, how does Google monopolize Android app distribution? You're free to install APKs yourself. So why isn't Apple being prosecuted? There's no such ability on that platform. Why does it always feel like Google is constantly being hounded about stuff that Apple gets off sco…

"That's always bothered me too. I think someone should be forced to admit to wrongdoing, or else keep battling in court to prove their side. " God no. For starters, civil litigation does not have a goal of proving right or wrong, but settling disputes between two parties. This is actually a good thing. But what you are suggesting goes against the very basis of civil litigation systems :). You see the same thing in sa…

> You see the same thing in say, divorces. People fight in court because they want a judge to tell them they are right and their ex is wrong, and mostly the judges tell them to grow up and act like adults.

From what I heard juges say nothing. Meanwhile lawers of both sides drain money from them until one of the sides concludes that it's not worth to continue.

Re: Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

#70

Post by ratorx »

ceejayoz wrote: post #41
Something1234 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why a subdomain and not just a random page? Are class actions always at the federal level and not the state level? Also lawyers wouldn't like that very much, camp lejune is being a pile of pain.

Subdomain to avoid polluting the .gov namespace too much. States could do similar; settlements.ny.gov. I’m tired of the “phishing or real?” game with these things.

Your original comment suggests you are proposing:

[class action identifier].settlements.gov

Parent is asking why not:

settlements.gov/[class action identifier]

Using a different page rather than subdomain wouldn’t have any real phishing downsides and would avoid polluting DNS entirely, so seems better.

Post reply on HN