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

211–220 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#211

Post by LanceH »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #185
bastawhiz wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

But we have that now. The idea of setting a term limit for Supreme Court justices is that it would minimize the effect of politicized appointments. Assuming the party that gets to make the appointments shifts over time, the makeup of the court is likely to be more balanced overall.

The problem with a 10 year employment is the expectation of getting paid for performance at the end of that term.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#212

Post by chrisseaton »

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

Why would they care about that? They already have the job for life. They don’t need to please their audience any more. They’re free to act on principle.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#214

Post by MagicPropmaker »

ttul wrote: post #161
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.

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.

Section 3 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes this, and it was well considered and debated by our founders.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#215

Post by burtonator »

outside1234 wrote: post #153
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.

> There is literally nothing else for these folks to strive for except being well regarded in the history books...

Or I don't know.. money, bribes, favoritism?

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#216

Post by luckylion »

skybrian wrote: post #203
luckylion wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 t…

Sure, that's unavoidable, but it's not the job definition. My point is that judges should never be guided by "how will some group/the majority/the elite/my children consider my decision now/in 5 years/in a century" but only by what they believe to be right at the moment of ruling. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up for arbitrary rulings to appease some future historian and create judges that try to rule to win popular support. "Polls say the majority wants the death penalty for petty theft? I better give them what they want"

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#217

Post by [deleted] »

chrisseaton wrote: post #212
SpikeDad wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Why would they care about that? They already have the job for life. They don’t need to please their audience any more. They’re free to act on principle.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#218

Post by kelnos »

chrisseaton wrote: post #212
SpikeDad wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Why would they care about that? They already have the job for life. They don’t need to please their audience any more. They’re free to act on principle.

Because people aren't actually like that in real life. Just because they've gotten a to a particular lifetime job in life, it doesn't mean they don't still crave the approval of their peers. They don't live in a vacuum. They want to still be invited to speak at the places they usually speak, attend the same parties they usually attend, etc.

And beyond that, there's a more fundamental issue: people like this are chosen for these roles because of their fervent, polarized political beliefs. Their principles, if they have any, are either aligned with or overcome by the politics. Their willingness to listen to reason and step outside their bubble is limited, unless doing so lines up with their politics.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#219

Post by kevin_b_er »

DannyBee wrote: post #10

I wrote comments on this case here in the past, and not gonna rewrite them, so here is the TL;DR: This was not unexpected but precedent was on Apple's side. Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. In that situation, Illinois Brick/etc would normally say consumers cannot sue you, only app developers can. Mo…

> Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. > This is technically true.

Technically? It doesn't look like it. Apple decides what is sold, how it is sold, IF it is sold, and what the thing sold may do. It will decide how to take payment, Apple takes payment and pays something else to the app developer after 30% and more. Apple decides when the developer gets money. Apple may retroactively cancel the sale within 90 days. Since the developer is paid within 60 days, it will do so.

Apple is what is bills the customer and Apple(or one of Apple's many subsidiaries) is who pays the developer.

Does the developer know who buys the things? No. They just give an infinite supply of widgets to Apple who sells them and gives the developer a cut.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#220

Post by Kye »

dang wrote: post #181

The opinion is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf . (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.)

SCOTUSBlog is my go-to source for all SCOTUS news and discussion.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/05/opinion-analysis-divided-...

Post reply on HN