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

111–120 of 156 posts

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

#111

Post by scarface_74 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #110
scarface_74 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Amazon book case had to do with collusion between Apple and the book publishers. It had absolutely nothing to do with Apple being a “monopoly”.

Unless you somehow think Apple had a monopoly on ebooks.

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

#112

Post by logronoide »

literalbatshit wrote: post #99
logronoide wrote: post #86

This abuse will come to an end when a CxO goes to jail for a few years. Then things will be taken seriously.

There are so many people that would happily take the risk for significant reward though. Like, make millions of dollars a year, 1% chance you go to prison? Lots of takers.

Your assumption is wrong, a large corp is not an organized crime corporation. To be a CxO of a large corp you just can’t be “people”. You have to be a person qualified way above the rest of us. If you can make millions in a different place not taking the risk of going to jail you won’t take a role in a risky corp. May be they are psychos, but not idiots.

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

#113

Post by Apocryphon »

scarface_74 wrote: post #111
Apocryphon wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Amazon book case had to do with collusion between Apple and the book publishers. It had absolutely nothing to do with Apple being a “monopoly”. Unless you somehow think Apple had a monopoly on ebooks.

Therefore, you admit your question "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?" was made in bad faith, empty rhetoric. Also you agree with me that you bring it up was a non sequitur.

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

#114

Post by ThatPlayer »

coldtea wrote: post #2

A sad developer treatment, and a sorry-ass state for a platform, but not related to antitrust law, much less a "textbook antitrust case". For starters, Apple is not a monopoly. You are not a monopoly on your own platform, especially if that platform doesn't even have the majority of the relevant market. A company makes a platform or product so that they dictate the terms and if it's a marketplace, what and how it acc…

It is textbook in that we have a pretty famous precedent with the Hollywood studios and the Paramount Case. None of the studios were a monopoly. Each of the studios were only dictating the terms of their own movies and how they could be purchased. It's a landmark vertical integration ruling. And that's what Apple are doing with their app store.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....

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

#115

Post by taeric »

scarface_74 wrote: post #106
taeric wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

The local bookstore is free to sell below wholesale cost, as well. Has often been done...

I did read the link. It did not, specifically, call out price dumping. What it called out was that publishers wanted people to value books at more than $9.99. Something that the Best Seller list of Amazon's was undermining. As someone that remembers this as it was happening, I also remember that other ebooks that Amazon was selling were at the suggested price.

Again, you are misrepresenting things. Wholesale price is the price the store paid to get the item. When they are not in the "agency" agreement, they are free to sell the item for whatever they value it at. Higher or lower. After all, the cost they paid is a sunk cost at that point and it may be worth it to move the item at a loss than to continue to store it. You are correct that price dumping resembles that idea, but it is a technically different thing. (I'll note that referring to ebooks as some sort of fixed inventory is silly for many other reasons...)

I don't know how to make it clearer, sadly, and feel you are purposely ignoring all points. An argument about Apple being guilty of antitrust violations despite not having a monopoly is solely an argument about monopoly not being a required factor of antitrust claims.

You have tried to argue that Amazon was actually the monopolist. There are some factual problems with that claim, but it is completely a non-sequitur on whether or not Apple needs to be a monopoly to run afoul of antitrust law. Same with whatever point you are trying to bring in about Epic. It is literally not relevant to the point that Apple may again be running afoul of antitrust rules.

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

#116

Post by scarface_74 »

taeric wrote: post #115
scarface_74 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

The local bookstore is free to sell below wholesale cost, as well. Has often been done... I did read the link. It did not, specifically, call out price dumping. What it called out was that publishers wanted people to value books at more than $9.99. Something that the Best Seller list of Amazon's was undermining. As someone that remembers this as it was happening, I also remember that other ebooks that Amazon was sell…

So you read the article. But you missed the part where it said

From the article:

> Amazon was actually losing money on e-book sales, but it didn’t care. The long-term goal was to get people to buy its Kindle e-readers.

—-

> After all, the cost they paid is a sunk cost at that point and it may be worth it to move the item at a loss than to continue to store it

You realize the discussion is about ebooks that Amazon was selling at a loss?

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

#117

Post by scarface_74 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #113
scarface_74 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Amazon book case had to do with collusion between Apple and the book publishers. It had absolutely nothing to do with Apple being a “monopoly”. Unless you somehow think Apple had a monopoly on ebooks.

Therefore, you admit your question "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?" was made in bad faith, empty rhetoric. Also you agree with me that you bring it up was a non sequitur.

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

And you bought up a completely irrelevant case that the judge ignored. She also ignored the case about Apple Music (the company owned by the Beatles) suing Apple, was that a relevant case too?

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

#118

Post by Apocryphon »

scarface_74 wrote: post #117
Apocryphon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Therefore, you admit your question "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?" was made in bad faith, empty rhetoric. Also you agree with me that you bring it up was a non sequitur.

I asked “So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?” And you bought up a completely irrelevant case that the judge ignored. She also ignored the case about Apple Music (the company owned by the Beatles) suing Apple, was that a relevant case too?

What was the ruling by the other judge, and was it brought up in Epic Games v. Apple

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

#119

Post by bfdm »

scarface_74 wrote: post #108
bfdm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”???

Who said any of that? I mean our elected government (US and Canada alike) is evidently unwilling to enact & enforce toothsome antitrust. And that's a source of a huge portion of our bigger problems. Outsized influence by a small number of voices, and a toxic cycle of using the proceeds to buy more deregulation via political donation.

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

#120

Post by miohtama »

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…

This is how anti-money laundering laws, bank account closures and money freeze work.

Any compliance officer, as long as they follow the rulebook, can decide to freeze your account on mere suspicion. How the law is written, they do not need to justify their actions any way, there is no lower threshold for suspicious activity, where a suspicion can be anything. To make matter more complex, compliance staff members, or anyone, are not allowed to tell about this to the customer because of “tip off” risk. In fact it is a criminal act to tip off money launderers. Any freeze can last as long as is needed for “investigation” which does not need to be an investigation by authorities.

And oh boy, this gets abused.

Post reply on HN