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

21–30 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#21

Post by davidu »

charliemil4 wrote: post #16
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!

Edit: friends, apologies for upsetting... first, I find the accusations horrendous. I am more just amused that K chose to write the opinion. Politics is a funny game. It’s hard to swallow, but we need a third constitutional convention because this stuff is wrecked in the us.

Prior to the confirmation insanity, Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides. All the confirmation hearings did was potentially radicalize him to the right. One of the best things about being a supreme court judge is that he no longer has to care about being reappointed or elected. He's not doing damage control, he's just being a supreme court judge.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#22

Post by [deleted] »

charliemil4 wrote: post #16
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!

Edit: friends, apologies for upsetting... first, I find the accusations horrendous. I am more just amused that K chose to write the opinion. Politics is a funny game. It’s hard to swallow, but we need a third constitutional convention because this stuff is wrecked in the us.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#23

Post by bluGill »

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

Not surprising. The supreme court typically takes a long time to get involved with anything.

They are the final word, so they must get it right. Thus they want lots of other lawyers and judges to spend time coming up with all arguments and working out all angles. The worst possible thing would be for them to issue a final ruling, only to realize they are wrong because of some line of reasoning nobody had thought of.

In short, by taking 8 years, many smart people have spent 8 years thinking about the issue. There is a good chance that nobody will think of a different argument that is compelling.

Unfortunately law is not math. There are no fundamental truths to start from. It is a matter of conflicting opinions. We will never be sure that they are right or wrong, but at least they carefully considered their decision trying to get it right.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#24

Post by benologist »

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

8 years and they're still yet to get to court.

Macbook owners with bad keyboards are probably looking at 1 - 2 decades before their settlement checks arrive!

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#25

Post by DannyBee »

dmix wrote: post #20
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.

Apple's argument was that 3rd parties set the prices on their platform not them (app developers), so they shouldn't be held liable for the monopolistic effects this creates.

That is mostly irrelevant to this part of the case, which was about standing. Your parent comment (which is getting downvoted) is correct.

Under previous precedent (Illinois Brick), only app developers would have standing to sue, and that is what apple argued should happen here.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#26

Post by hestefisk »

DannyBee wrote: post #12
lalos wrote: post #9

Question: How can Apple have a monopoly if a customer can decide to buy a competitor's phone to use as they please (Android, etc). That's where I get lost. The Windows/Netscape made sense since the claim was that Windows dominated the market almost completely (around 90% on those times?). Can I sue any other hardware device company (smart fridges, smart tvs, rokus) for monopoly since I can't load my own apps on them?…

This is specifically about the app store. Antitrust is all about defining markets (which lots of people at HN don't get). How the court defines the market will decide whether you win or lose in almost all cases. Here, this is a case about the app store. The market was defined as consumers of apple phones who use the app store. In that market, apple is clearly a monopolist. In some larger or smaller market, they may n…

Very helpful thanks.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#28

Post by derefr »

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” (your phone), were routed through Google payment processing, and the results were deployed to a Google device (your phone again.)

But from the perspective of the seller, you were just using an arbitrary Android device to run their App Store on; and Google, to them, is just the payment-processor they chose to use (probably because it’s conveniently integrated on Android devices) but they could have just-as-well used PayPal or Stripe.

Is this third-party App Store—in this particular case—legally “Google?” Even though, in other cases, where people are using other non-Google Android devices to access the store, or maybe selecting a different payment-processor option at checkout, they definitely aren’t legally Google? I would say “obviously no.” Those apps were legally sold by the third-party App Store. Google was just a payment processor there. (Payment processors still also have legal responsibilities regarding the transaction, but they’re different than those of the seller.)

And if that’s true, then what’s the difference between a third-party App Store that you installed as its own app, and a “third-party App Store” that is a section of the Apple App Store app, e.g. a Microsoft section or Adobe section? Isn’t that the same as, say, buying from a physical Microsoft store in an Apple-owned shopping mall?

And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one?

I feel like this is something that’s unclear enough that you could spent eight years arguing the various precedents behind deciding either way.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#29

Post by bena »

davidu wrote: post #21
charliemil4 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: friends, apologies for upsetting... first, I find the accusations horrendous. I am more just amused that K chose to write the opinion. Politics is a funny game. It’s hard to swallow, but we need a third constitutional convention because this stuff is wrecked in the us.

Prior to the confirmation insanity, Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides. All the confirmation hearings did was potentially radicalize him to the right. One of the best things about being a supreme court judge is that he no longer has to care about being reappointed or elected. He's not doing damage control, he's just being a supreme court judge.

That's an interesting rewriting of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#30

Post by joezydeco »

davidu wrote: post #21
charliemil4 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: friends, apologies for upsetting... first, I find the accusations horrendous. I am more just amused that K chose to write the opinion. Politics is a funny game. It’s hard to swallow, but we need a third constitutional convention because this stuff is wrecked in the us.

Prior to the confirmation insanity, Kavanaugh was viewed as one of the best supreme court justice nominations for all sides. All the confirmation hearings did was potentially radicalize him to the right. One of the best things about being a supreme court judge is that he no longer has to care about being reappointed or elected. He's not doing damage control, he's just being a supreme court judge.

But I've seen some speculation that after all the awfulness of the confirmation hearings accusing him of being a hard-right leaning justice that he would actually try (consciously or not) to show he's not locked into that mindset.
Post reply on HN