181–190 of 357 posts
(That was the posted URL, but it's usually best to find the highest-quality popular article on a story and then include a link to the "paper" in the thread.
If anyone finds a better URL we can change it again—I just Googled until I found something that wasn't too annoying.)
For those downvoting bitwize, get a life. This is an accurate and impartial explanation of the arguments actually at stake in the legal case, clarifying an ambiguity in the post it's replying to. Apple has two possible customers in this issue - the developers it provides distribution services to and the consumers that buy the apps. The point in question is which of these two customers has standing to sue on the basis…
Also, please omit distracting dross like "get a life".
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19899824 and marked it off topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A ten year term ought to do the trick, though. And would allow the passage of time to undo any stacking of the court that a particular president wants to engage in.
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…
> 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…
No different to Nintendo, PS4 stores etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A ten year term ought to do the trick, though. And would allow the passage of time to undo any stacking of the court that a particular president wants to engage in.
...until you get presidential candidates campaigning on the promise that they'll fill SCOTUS seats with the candidates of their alignment. It's practically an election by proxy.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
It shouldn't be surprising. Nothing about his testimony or judicial history indicated he would be particularly conservative on women's rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 Pittsburg…
You would still have to buy a new $600 phone to use that $1 app irrespective of whether Apple had multiple stores or not. iOS is a platform and apps can only work on that platform.
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…
The question is whether Apple should make it easy for you to do this. And there is no legal basis for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
It shouldn't be surprising. Nothing about his testimony or judicial history indicated he would be particularly conservative on women's rights.