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

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#151

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:00 PM UTC

esmi wrote: post #142

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. When this matters is when you have a dominant market position. Target doesn't have to sell Nike because you can reasonably buy them at Walmart. Nike doesn't have to sell to Target because Target can reasonably buy from Reebok, which is a reasonable substitute. The issue here is that there is no reasonable substitute…

> So Apple has a dominant position in iOS app distribution Is iOS app distribution a thing that can be dominated though, legally? In your example I get how stores and shoes are both things that can be dominated but what category of thing does iOS app distribution fall into? Is it still in the same category if one deletes iOS and just calls it in "app store"? Would Apple still dominate apps? It's all confusing to me.…

This is getting into market definition, which is kind of complicated and subjective, but one of the key factors is substitution.

So for example, is "Clorox bleach" its own market, separate from just "bleach"? Well, no. Clorox bleach is chemically identical to any other bleach. You could switch one for the other and not even be able to tell the difference.

On the other hand, is "broadband internet service in Pittsburgh" a different market than just "broadband internet service"? It kind of is. There may be a dozen different ISPs in varying cities across the country, but the prerequisite to using one that doesn't offer service in your city is to sell your house and move somewhere else. That doesn't make it a particularly viable substitute.

So then is "iOS app store" a different market than just "app store"? Well, what do you have to do to substitute one for the other? Is it reasonable to have to exchange your $600 phone, or buy a second $600 phone, in order to buy a $1 app from a different store?

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#152

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:07 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #117

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.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#153

Post by outside1234 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:07 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!

This is what is great about it being a lifetime appointment.

There is literally nothing else for these folks to strive for except being well regarded in the history books, so they can finally do what they regard as the best thing to do.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#154

Post by intopieces » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

amdavidson wrote: post #125

intopieces wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aren't all PS4 discs AES signed? I believe that (barring a hacked system) there is no side loading of games that aren't Sony-blessed.

Sony blesses them, but the ways in which a consumer can obtain those blessed discs is much more varied than the App Store, and Sony doesn’t oversee the sale of discs. You can’t rent or borrow apps, can’t resell them, can’t trade them...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#155

Post by dlandis » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

> In this case, unlike in Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are not consumers at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain who are attempting to sue manufacturers at the top of the chain. There is no intermediary in the distribution chain between Apple and the consumer. The iPhone owners purchase apps directly from the retailer Apple, who is the alleged antitrust violator. The iPhone owners pay the alleged overcharge directly to Apple. The absence of an intermediary is dispositive.

Key paragraph from opinion.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#156

Post by swedish_mafia » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

Try to understand: Kavanugh and the people he is aligned with are like that incompetent manager in your office who took your successful project using their influence. Now they want to shake down Apple. After that google just watch.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#157

Post by docker_up » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

AWildC182 wrote: post #129

docker_up wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Proves is a strong word... It's a data point to be sure, but it's not proof.

It really does prove it. If they were completely aligned with politics, they would have ALWAYS voted in a predictable way.

They may have more conservative or liberal tendencies, but to think that that all Justices will vote the way that people want to pigeonhole them into is ridiculous.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#158

Post by reredacted » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:23 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.

Thanks to McCocksucker

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#159

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

theshrike79 wrote: post #147

So I could now sue Microsoft because I can only buy XBox games from their store? Or Sony, because they are the only vendor of Playstation games?

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#160

Post by gamblor956 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

microcolonel wrote: post #132

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!

> Probably the most unexpected alignment of the current term! Not so! There are many decisions by Kavanaugh that "liberals" (it's weird to me that they're called than in the U.S.) will have trouble predicting the opinions of conservatives [0]. “Who was best able to pretend to be the other? The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pre…

One of the things that Haidt leaves out of his article is that the % of difference between liberals and conservatives was within the margin of error.

His findings have also never been validated, even by other conservative scholars, and he refuses to provide the data from this study. (Also, the study was a survey given to people attending the Reagan Library during the work week, so a highly self-selective bunch...)

(Jonathan Haidt was a hero of one of my professors...until the scholarly issues with Haidt's research came to light.)