Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#111

Post by filoleg » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

randyrand wrote: post #18

cabaalis wrote: post #5

Am I reading correctly that this argument has now been going on for 8 years, or at minimum nearly 6? [1] An argument about who I am buying from when I type my credit card into Apple's system, click a purchase button on an Apple device, and then use the results of that purchase solely on Apple devices? [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204

2/3 of those are true for every purchase you make on your phone. 3/3 of those are true for some digital products like amazon kindle books even where you buy from amazon, not apple. Or put another way, those are therefor clearly not the correct questions to be asking.

I think that’s why you cannot buy kindle books from the amazon app on iOS.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#112

Post by TimTheTinker » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:42 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #90

fastball wrote: post #27

It would be nice if people in this thread could stop expressing surprise that Justice Kavanaugh sided the way he did when these people presumably have no idea which way Kavanaugh has decided for similar cases in the past.

This is flippant and non-helpful. If you disagree with how his record is characterized, then please post counter examples. But let me post the following: + Rejected challenges to NSA authority + Rejected workers rights to picket + Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools + Rejected meat labeling requirements + Repeatedly restricted the EPA https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-tr...…

> Kavanaugh is highly anti-consumer. That he's sided with consumers in this case is very surprising to me.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume partisanship on the basis of a It's rather unfortunate that courts have become the foci of partisan politics. It reflect the reality that Congress has been effectively abdicating their duty as the ones who must write the law.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#113

Post by docker_up » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #4

For those who don't want to read the opinion: SCOTUS holds that Apple can be sued for alleged monopoly of the Apple App Store. It does not decide whether or not this alleged monopoly exist. Interestingly, it's a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh writing the decision, joined by the 4 liberal justices. Probably the most unexpected alignment of the current term!

I think this proves that Supreme court justices are not aligned with any political parties. They take their roles very seriously. Kavanaugh looks to be very much a worthy Supreme Court Justice, same as Roberts who was elected by Bush (whom I hate more than Trump). I'm glad he was able to survive the ridiculous antics he went through and I think he will be a good justice regardless of what people think his allegiance was.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#114

Post by ff317 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #90

fastball wrote: post #27

It would be nice if people in this thread could stop expressing surprise that Justice Kavanaugh sided the way he did when these people presumably have no idea which way Kavanaugh has decided for similar cases in the past.

This is flippant and non-helpful. If you disagree with how his record is characterized, then please post counter examples. But let me post the following: + Rejected challenges to NSA authority + Rejected workers rights to picket + Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools + Rejected meat labeling requirements + Repeatedly restricted the EPA https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-tr...…

None of your examples are about how he looks at the particular issues in this case though. You've arbitrarily grouped this case with the several others above by putting them all on an axis of whether he's anti-consumer or pro-consumer. You may choose to perceive justices on these ideological axes, but these ideological axes are probably not what determines how they vote, even if there are sometimes strong correlations.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#115

Post by pier25 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #28

cabaalis wrote: post #5

Am I reading correctly that this argument has now been going on for 8 years, or at minimum nearly 6? [1] An argument about who I am buying from when I type my credit card into Apple's system, click a purchase button on an Apple device, and then use the results of that purchase solely on Apple devices? [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204

I see what you’re implying, but tweak one little thing and the answer seems vastly different: Instead of an Apple device, say you’re using a Google-manufactured Android device (something-or-other), and have installed a third-party App Store on it. But that third-party App Store turns around and uses Google Pay as its payment processor. All the same qualifications still apply: you essentially used a “Google POS device…

The difference is that the hypothetical third party Android App Store could use any payment service it wanted, or even the user could use any App Store it preferred.

With iOS not only you can't buy from a third party, you can't even install an app that hasn't been signed by Apple.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#116

Post by DropkickM16 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #112

vorpalhex wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is flippant and non-helpful. If you disagree with how his record is characterized, then please post counter examples. But let me post the following: + Rejected challenges to NSA authority + Rejected workers rights to picket + Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools + Rejected meat labeling requirements + Repeatedly restricted the EPA https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-tr...…

> Kavanaugh is highly anti-consumer. That he's sided with consumers in this case is very surprising to me. I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume partisanship on the basis of a It's rather unfortunate that courts have become the foci of partisan politics. It reflect the reality that Congress has been effectively abdicating their duty as the ones who must write the law.

Brett_Kavanaugh: U.S._Circuit_Judge_(2006–2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#U.S._Circuit_J...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#117

Post by maxxxxx » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #4

For those who don't want to read the opinion: SCOTUS holds that Apple can be sued for alleged monopoly of the Apple App Store. It does not decide whether or not this alleged monopoly exist. Interestingly, it's a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh writing the decision, joined by the 4 liberal justices. Probably the most unexpected alignment of the current term!

It gives me a little hope that the justices sometimes still had their own opinions instead of just following the party line as they often do.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#118

Post by yAak » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:13 PM UTC

Radle wrote: post #68

bitwize wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It held that Apple could be sued by end users . Apple's argument was that only app developers had standing.

"The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis of the specific harm in question. Under US law the answer cannot be both." This in fact not what SCOTUS wrote, SCOTUS clearly said that Apple may be sued by developers and consumers alike, the mere fact that apple has a monopolistic (They hold all the consumer supply in this market) and a monopsonistic(They satisfy all the demand…

Thank you for taking the time to clarify this in layman's terms!

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#119

Post by perfectstorm » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

cwoolfe wrote: post #44

As an app developer, I'm not a fan of apple taking a 30% or 15% cut. It's is possible to get around by offering the app for free and then using a third party payment processor to allow users to purchase or subscribe to a service your app provides. The way I see it, developers have that choice to charge the "expensive, easy way" using Apple's platform, or the "more profitable but harder way" using a third party.

you're not allowed to do that. You've to use Apple's in-app purchase otherwise Apple will reject your app.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#120

Post by sgjohnson » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:17 PM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #101

sgjohnson wrote: post #96

I don’t think it’ll go anywhere. How is it any different from what Sony is doing with the PlayStation store or Microsoft with Xbox?

Those two stores are not the exclusive avenue for customers to play games. Developers may choose to bypass those stores altogether and release their games on disc if they choose.

Good point.