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

201–210 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#201

Post by ars »

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...…

> Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools

This one is pro-consumer, not anti consumer.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#202

Post by eridius »

ashelmire wrote: post #192
ttul wrote: post #161

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.

6 year staggered appointments. So 3 justices terms are up every 2 years. Means one president doesn't get to completely stack the court, but each has a fair impact on it, and we aren't stuck with judges with outdated ideologies forever (unless people vote for it).

6 years is awfully short for this sort of thing. What we absolutely need to avoid is having justices have to care about reelection, which means we need to say justices can only ever serve one term, which means we need longer terms.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#203

Post by skybrian »

luckylion wrote: post #199
jethro_tell wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't in reference to popularity now, but more being on the right side of history later.

"The right side of history" is for politicians to pursue, not for judges. They aren't supposed to make policies or create laws, their job is to apply the laws. If they do their job correctly, and you disagree with the constitution and therefore also with their decisions, that should never be an issue for them.

This is sort of a stylized high-level description of how the U.S. government works, but it isn't really true. Law is often made by the courts (we call it precedent). Law is also made by the executive branch (by writing detailed regulations).

It does have to be justified based on existing law and this is important. But often, existing law only talks about broad principles or is contradictory, and judges are expected to fill in the details. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, these "details" can be really huge gaps.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#204

Post by eridius »

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…

I don't understand this argument though. Surely if both app customers and app developers sued Apple they'd be suing over the exact same damages?

Either customers have their prices artificially increased, at which point app developers don't have damages as they're getting the money from customers, or else app developers are keeping prices low and taking the damage themselves, at which point customers aren't harmed.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#205

Post by chimeracoder »

ashelmire wrote: post #192
ttul wrote: post #161

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.

6 year staggered appointments. So 3 justices terms are up every 2 years. Means one president doesn't get to completely stack the court, but each has a fair impact on it, and we aren't stuck with judges with outdated ideologies forever (unless people vote for it).

> 6 year staggered appointments. So 3 justices terms are up every 2 years. Means one president doesn't get to completely stack the court, but each has a fair impact on it, and we aren't stuck with judges with outdated ideologies forever (unless people vote for it).

That's how the Senate used to work, with state legislatures "electing" the senators.

That was replaced a hundred years ago with direct election of senators.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#206

Post by Fellshard »

bduerst wrote: post #200
Fellshard wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again, a consumer using something doesn't justify anti-competitive behavior with companies. If the bar for antitrust was whether or not a person bought it, then there wouldn't be a need for antitrust law.

I would recommend looking up what antitrust does and does not cover. This is not suitable grounds for antitrust arguments as the law is currently given; if you were arguing 'Apple has a monopoly on Apple-exclusive apps', you might have a case, but even then there are many apps that are cross platform, and those that choose to develop exclusively for Apple are making a market decision that they may be liable for if the cost of production increases because of it.

I don't think you can argue platform monopoly here any more than you could argue, say, that Amazon has a monopoly on AWS-specific services. Since an app developer can choose which platform to use with approximate levels of parity between those platforms and a few distinctive services per platform, it is my opinion that the 'platform monopoly' argument is rendered void. This argument is only weakened in recent years as feature parity increases between Android and Apple ecosystems.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#207

Post by outside1234 »

luckylion wrote: post #199
jethro_tell wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't in reference to popularity now, but more being on the right side of history later.

"The right side of history" is for politicians to pursue, not for judges. They aren't supposed to make policies or create laws, their job is to apply the laws. If they do their job correctly, and you disagree with the constitution and therefore also with their decisions, that should never be an issue for them.

They should strive to create equal protection under the law, which over time they have done, by striking down laws that aren't this like Jim Crow laws etc.

This is what an appeals court justice does and their check and balance role on the other two branches of govt.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#209

Post by rexpop »

SpikeDad wrote: post #163
outside1234 wrote: post #153

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.

This is what's terrible about being a lifetime appointment. Once a politicial driven justice gets appointed there's literally nothing that will change them. Perhaps in the "old" days when Justices had the feelings you're attributing it might be true but now in the current political situation ideologues are who are sought out to appoint and they care only they're well regarded by their own political persuasion.

> they care only they're well regarded by their own political persuasion.

I'd be surprised to discover any alternatives to this constraint.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#210

Post by jmvoodoo »

luckylion wrote: post #199
jethro_tell wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't in reference to popularity now, but more being on the right side of history later.

"The right side of history" is for politicians to pursue, not for judges. They aren't supposed to make policies or create laws, their job is to apply the laws. If they do their job correctly, and you disagree with the constitution and therefore also with their decisions, that should never be an issue for them.

The supreme Court primarily hears important cases where there are strong and reasonable legal arguments on each side. The idea that they can just apply the law in these cases is a bit unrealistic. It's just not that clear cut in the majority of SC cases.
Post reply on HN