221–230 of 357 posts
Antitrust lawsuits are brought by the government itself, not consumers.
For example, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated or United States vs. Microsoft Corporation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
It's just like a sales tax, who does it come from, the consumer or the retailer? It really doesn't matter, the effect is the same.
The only problem is if it is accounted for twice. If it adds $10 to a transaction, you can't say both the consumer and developer are each harmed by $10. Better to say each are harmed by $5.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 chose…
I certainly hope current SCOTUS justices have a solid grasp of history and what happened to the last SCOTUS justice who acted in a manner you're suggesting. And this is an institution that (also, as history would have it) does a pretty good job giving a wide berth to precedent.
I am having hardtime understanding if this can even be called a monopoly? Assume there is a A mart if it lets other vendors sell their products in its store on the condition that there is a small price they have to pay in order to put their products on its shelves in return they dont need to pay rent and they get the benefit of customers who love to shop at A mart could this be considered a monopoly? Also who is resp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody has ruled on whether the practices are actually monopolistic or not - this ruling just allows a suit against Apple to proceed, which will then make that determination about their business practices. The debate in this case was all about whether the end user was Apple's customer (thus able to sue Apple directly) or the developer's customer.
There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly, is there? Don't you have to abuse that power before regulators step in?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 chose…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 chose…
Their willingness to listen to reason and step outside their bubble is limited, unless doing so lines up with their politics. I certainly hope current SCOTUS justices have a solid grasp of history and what happened to the last SCOTUS justice who acted in a manner you're suggesting. And this is an institution that (also, as history would have it) does a pretty good job giving a wide berth to precedent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 chose…
Exactly. And the Heritage Society goes out of its way to cultivate a bunch of peers, current Supreme Court Justices being the first and foremost of those peers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their willingness to listen to reason and step outside their bubble is limited, unless doing so lines up with their politics. I certainly hope current SCOTUS justices have a solid grasp of history and what happened to the last SCOTUS justice who acted in a manner you're suggesting. And this is an institution that (also, as history would have it) does a pretty good job giving a wide berth to precedent.
Ooo, bad timing on that "wide berth to precedent" point. The new majority just threw out a 40 year old precedent today: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/us/politics/supreme-court...