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

Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

patentlyapple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 156 posts

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#101

Post by taeric »

scarface_74 wrote: post #95
taeric wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really clear what you are showing me here? Nobody argued in court that Amazon was price dumping. It is speculated that the NYT BestSeller deal of $9.99 was maybe in that direction, but nobody really argued that in court. Quite the contrary, it was argued, successfully, that it was perfectly legal for Amazon to offer discounts like this. (Ironically to this debate, they didn't blankly sell all ebooks at 9.99,…

Really? No one was arguing that Amazon was price dumping? The publishers sold the right to sell the ebooks to Amazon for $x where $x was greater than $9.99. Amazon sold the ebook for $9.99. Was Amazon trying to make it up in volume? > More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted If the publisher sold the physical books for $16.99 and the right to sell the ebook for $14.99 to Amazon and then Amaz…

Price dumping is a very specific claim, and one that was not in the article you linked. By your definition, if I go to my local bookstore and they have a best seller discount at the front, they are price dumping, too? Sales pricing is a thing that is allowed by many contracts from publishers to sellers. For mostly very good reasons. (That is, you are misunderstanding a lot about that case by thinking that Amazon was breaking a deal with publishers to sell at a lower rate. That was contractually allowed by their current agreement with publishers. The "suggested retail price" was basically that, a "suggested" price. Apple helped the publishers move to a new contract that allowed the publishers to flat out set the price.)

Again, I'm not really wanting to defend Amazon here. I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find practices of theirs that I disagree with. I am not convinced they are or were breaking antitrust laws, though; by evidence of them not being accused of that.

I don't really have an opinion on the Epic case. Such that that is just another non-sequitur. Apple has been guilty of antitrust violations in the past, despite not having a monopoly. Any other argument can be fun, but is a different argument.

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#102

Post by arrosenberg »

ecf wrote: post #75
arrosenberg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For starters, Apple is not a monopoly. You are not a monopoly on your own platform Doesn't matter. Antitrust laws address competition, monopoly is just a subset. The Apple App Store is an 800lb Gorilla is the app space, ergo, subject to pro-competition laws. The app developer can't sell his app on iPhones via another channel, iPhones make up a substantial part of the market, and that's why those laws exist and appl…

I cannot imagine the effect a ruling like this would have on businesses if you actually got your way. It would very clearly lay out that investing in an ecosystem of hardware products and doing it well will only result in all that investment, time, energy, employee sweat and tears, ALL OF IT, to be rendered useless. Basically setting an entire business on fire. Quite frankly I find it ridiculous people here are even…

That's hysterical. If I had my way, Apple would be required by law to allow fair and reasonable pricing, alternate app stores, as well as transparency in whatever bureaucratic decisions they make. They'd still make an absurd amount of money on their hardware.

I find it ridiculous that we allow a private company to act as regulator over any sector of the economy, let alone one they have over 50% market share in.

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#103

Post by layer8 »

ungruntled wrote: post #34
CamperBob2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is ZERO reason to be anything other than 100% transparent. The customary rationale, at least around here, goes something like "B...b...b...but if we actually document the rules and tell you what you did wrong, it helps the BAD GUYS!!!11!!"

I agree. Imagine a legal system where the laws are hidden from citizens and they are only informed of their guilt without meaningful appeal. I feel that any severed contract should require a clear reason with evidence along with an real opportunity for a rebuttal. If that fails then the court system can handle the rest. I used to believe that companies should be allowed to halt business with whomever they please, but…

> Imagine a legal system where the laws are hidden from citizens and they are only informed of their guilt without meaningful appeal.

That’s almost the definition of kafkaesque.

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#104

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tinus_hn wrote: post #87
fyrn_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or perhaps Apple has really good lawyers, and whenever a case looks like it might set precedent they settle out of court?

Really good lawyers still can’t defend textbook cases. But you mean to say that for all those indie developers who got their life’s work destroyed it was about the money anyway? Why would you settle otherwise?

> Really good lawyers still can’t defend textbook cases.

In many cases they can, because while the violation is textbook, they find some unrelated technicality to have the case dismissed. The plaintiff is in the wrong jurisdiction, or filed too late, or too early, or agreed to a binding arbitration clause etc. etc.

And when they run out of all of that, they open their wallet and pay the plaintiffs to settle so the prospective loss doesn't set a precedent against them or result in an injunction that would order them to discontinue their behavior in general.

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#105

Post by ecf »

arrosenberg wrote: post #102
ecf wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot imagine the effect a ruling like this would have on businesses if you actually got your way. It would very clearly lay out that investing in an ecosystem of hardware products and doing it well will only result in all that investment, time, energy, employee sweat and tears, ALL OF IT, to be rendered useless. Basically setting an entire business on fire. Quite frankly I find it ridiculous people here are even…

That's hysterical. If I had my way, Apple would be required by law to allow fair and reasonable pricing, alternate app stores, as well as transparency in whatever bureaucratic decisions they make. They'd still make an absurd amount of money on their hardware. I find it ridiculous that we allow a private company to act as regulator over any sector of the economy, let alone one they have over 50% market share in.

> I find it ridiculous that we allow a private company to act as regulator over any sector of the economy, let alone one they have over 50% market share in.

If you feel that way then there are countries with economic models that don’t allow this. Venezuela comes to mind. Maybe you should relocate there so you can experience the outcome of heavy handed government control.

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#106

Post by scarface_74 »

taeric wrote: post #101
scarface_74 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? No one was arguing that Amazon was price dumping? The publishers sold the right to sell the ebooks to Amazon for $x where $x was greater than $9.99. Amazon sold the ebook for $9.99. Was Amazon trying to make it up in volume? > More, your argument was that sales of physical books were impacted If the publisher sold the physical books for $16.99 and the right to sell the ebook for $14.99 to Amazon and then Amaz…

Price dumping is a very specific claim, and one that was not in the article you linked. By your definition, if I go to my local bookstore and they have a best seller discount at the front, they are price dumping, too? Sales pricing is a thing that is allowed by many contracts from publishers to sellers. For mostly very good reasons. (That is, you are misunderstanding a lot about that case by thinking that Amazon was…

Why else do you think Amazon was selling below the wholesale costs? The local bookstore may be selling below list price. But they aren’t selling below wholesale costs.

Again did you read the link I posted, the publishers explicitly did not want Amazon selling ebooks below list cost.

> The "suggested retail price" was basically that, a "suggested"

Again you didn’t read the article. There are three prices involved

1. The wholesale price - this is the price that the publisher sells the right to Amazon to sell the book. For example $14.00

2. The suggested retail price could very well be $20.00

A “sale” that the bookstore would do would be somewhere between $14.00 and $19.99. They would not sell the book for $9.99 and lose $5.01

> Any other argument can be fun, but is a different argument.

But yet an argument about Apple being accused of “collusion” about books is somehow relevant to a discussion about a “monopoly” on the app store.

But a lawsuit about App Store where Apple was found not to be a monopoly isn’t relevant about selling an app?

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#107

Post by scarface_74 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #98
scarface_74 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So an article about what happened in the Apple ebooks case is a non sequitur about what happened in the Apple ebooks case? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since people are ignoring a judges ruling that Apple isn’t a monopoly and saying it’s irrelevant.

Judges are actively ignoring each other’s rulings these days, what matters is the newest case that will ensue, what happened in the case you are citing is basically an eternity as far as legal regimes go.

So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#108

Post by scarface_74 »

bfdm wrote: post #52
scarface_74 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What standard are you comparing to A real judge saying that Apple isn’t a monopoly… https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/story/resounding-vic...

I don't particularly care what the current case law says, antitrust has been eroded for four decades to the point of being a joke. We need to overhaul this around the world and tame megacorps everywhere. The behavior is plainly monopolistic and anticompetitive on its face. That it does not suffer judgement as violating any laws about such conduct is a sad reflection of our government corruption and unwillingness to r…

“I don’t care what the law or judges say. I know I’m right because Apple paid off a judge and the judge was corrupt”???

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#109

Post by scarface_74 »

owisd wrote: post #39
scarface_74 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, we have a real judge in a real court in the Epic vs Apple lawsuit where the judge said that Apple isn’t a monopoly.

Not ruled a monopoly only in the market of digital mobile gaming transactions. But it’s not illegal to be a monopoly, the judge still ruled they broke competition law by banning Epic from linking to their own store front.

And yet the judge let the ban stand…

Re: Japanese game publisher Digital Will has filed a lawsuit against Apple

#110

Post by Apocryphon »

scarface_74 wrote: post #107
Apocryphon wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges are actively ignoring each other’s rulings these days, what matters is the newest case that will ensue, what happened in the case you are citing is basically an eternity as far as legal regimes go.

So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?

Yes, because if you look at the ruling, she does not actually reference United States v. Apple Inc. (the Amazon ebooks case), meaning it did not factor into her decision in the slightest.
Post reply on HN