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

Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#171

Post by icelancer »

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...…

Those issues are not relevant to the current one, which is the whole point. Extrapolating what he would do in this monopolistic/monopsonistic case based on EPA and labor law rulings is... a stretch.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#172

Post by Spivak »

michaelmrose wrote: post #131
Spivak wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you resolve this with the fact that exclusives exist and are tolerated in just about every industry. You can only buy the new Jordan's from X stores, only available on PS4, exclusively at Target, etc. And places that sell things are well within their right to choose their vendors unless you want to demand that the BMV dealership be leglly required to sell Ford trucks if Ford desired. Put exclusivity and vendor…

The argument discussed was literally Apple trying to argue that you aren't their customer for the purpose of legal liability while you pay them money to install apps from their store on a device they configured to only be able to buy from their store. This decision makes clear that legal weasels lost. Understanding next steps requires constructing the argument correctly. One could ask why should Apple be forced to op…

Look I want to have full control of my devices but I don't think owning the physical hardware entitles you to any rights other than you may do with the device as-is as you please.

If we decide that designing a toaster to only accept $vendor's bread is illegal that's all well and good but the justification for such a law will be that it's monopolistic behavior, not that the end user owns the toaster.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#173

Post by pier25 »

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?

It's all relative, but I don't think a game console can be compared to a general purpose pocket computer. Even Apple has been marketing the iPad as a laptop replacement.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#174

Post by jasonlotito »

Fellshard wrote: post #150
bduerst wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming the consumer in this case doesn't fly because the consumer owns the device once they purchase it, and it is anticompetitive for Apple to lock out competing services on the consumer's device. The "Just don't buy it" argument also doesn't work for The Right to Repair movement. Either way, end users have the right to sue Apple here, not just the developers.

That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a general computing device that they can use for any purpose and customize freely, which is simply not the case. Furthermore, repair applies to the hardware of the device, not the software ecosystem. You have to make a separate, very different argument for software as it is more malleable and less restricted than hardware components are.

> That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a general computing device

Considering Apple has been pushing the "iPad is a PC replacement," it's a fairly easy case to make with regard to iOS and the App store. There is a lot Apple has done to push the idea that the "users" are in control of their information and that "there is an app for that." Couple that with the history of people being able to customize their phones in certain ways, it's not a case that is that hard to make, especially when compared to contemporary phones.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#176

Post by Fellshard »

pier25 wrote: post #169
Fellshard wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue the point of consumer choice is at device selection. If they choose the ecosystem with the heavy markup, when they had alternatives, then they are responsible for incurring their own additional costs. The information is public regarding app costs between devices and marketplaces. This seems to me a bad ruling based on that.

Everyone has a different opinion on this, but I have a hard time believing desktop users (Linux, Mac, Windows) would accept getting their software only from the computer manufacturer's officially approved store. Would you?

I certainly don't like it, no, but that doesn't make it antitrust in this case. My feelings and desires aren't what determines law, and thank goodness for that.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#177

Post by Fellshard »

pier25 wrote: post #170
Fellshard wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a general computing device that they can use for any purpose and customize freely, which is simply not the case. Furthermore, repair applies to the hardware of the device, not the software ecosystem. You have to make a separate, very different argument for software as it is more malleable and less restricted than hardware components are.

> believes they are buying a general computing device that they can use for any purpose and customize freely, which is simply not the case So you are arguing that an iPhone is a very sophisticated calculator and not a general purpose computer?

I am arguing it is constrained by its manufacturer and that consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase. That is sufficient for the consumer to take on liability if the choice does not meet their needs.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#178

Post by Fellshard »

jasonlotito wrote: post #174
Fellshard wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a general computing device that they can use for any purpose and customize freely, which is simply not the case. Furthermore, repair applies to the hardware of the device, not the software ecosystem. You have to make a separate, very different argument for software as it is more malleable and less restricted than hardware components are.

> That requires making the case that the consumer believes they are buying a general computing device Considering Apple has been pushing the "iPad is a PC replacement," it's a fairly easy case to make with regard to iOS and the App store. There is a lot Apple has done to push the idea that the "users" are in control of their information and that "there is an app for that." Couple that with the history of people being…

I do think you have a better argument: if Apple has falsely advertised the capabilites of its platform as being capable of general computing, it may be liable on that count. I do not think you can argue a history of customizing phones, given Apple was the first provider with this scale of adoption.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#179

Post by asdf21 »

noelsusman wrote: post #166
kolbe wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't be surprising. Nothing about his testimony or judicial history indicated he would be particularly conservative on women's rights.

I'm sure it's surprising to the various pro-life groups who fought for his nomination.

As if they're paying attention any more, if they ever were at any analytical level.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#180

Post by threatofrain »

khawkins wrote: post #87
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 the fact that he sided with the liberal justices in favor of Planned Parenthood was less expected [1]. Especially considering his hearings were plagued with disruptions and protests from pro-choice activists. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-plan...

Brett Kavanaugh was barely confirmed in the senate 50-48. If the small handful of individuals in the GOP who supported the legalization of abortion felt that Brett Kavanaugh would be bad for women's rights, they could've successfully rejected the nomination.
Post reply on HN