Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

Post by pankajdoharey » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:34 PM UTC

Kye wrote: post #225

pankajdoharey wrote: post #223

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…

I can go somewhere else to buy potatoes if I don't like how one store handles them. An iPhone owner can't go off to the Microsoft, Google, or Amazon stores if they don't like the version in the Apple store. They have a monopoly on apps for iOS devices.

Post by sjy » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #189

michaelmrose wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Apple allows you just as much control as every other product. If you were to break all of the security controls you could do whatever you want including adding a new App Store just like Cydia did. The question is whether Apple should make it easy for you to do this. And there is no legal basis for that.

Post by rayiner » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #187

kolbe wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shouldn't be surprising. Nothing about his testimony or judicial history indicated he would be particularly conservative on women's rights.

It suggests the Federalist Society failed to do their job in vetting the candidate for ideological purity, especially since Trump was holding up the Kavanaugh nomination as a big win for his anti-abortion base voters.

Post by MrStonedOne » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

delinka wrote: post #123

sethhochberg wrote: post #19

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.

I think this debate is interesting, but I don't expect Apple to be happy about the final outcome. A developer publishing solely on Apple's App Store (and relying solely on Apple features to provide functionality) has no direct access to the customer* - Apple prevents that fairly well. In this case, I feel like, as a consumer, I'm Apple's customer. I think courts, and especially juries, would agree. That said, I don't…

Post by robbrown451 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

docker_up wrote: post #157

AWildC182 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proves is a strong word... It's a data point to be sure, but it's not proof.

It really does prove it. If they were completely aligned with politics, they would have ALWAYS voted in a predictable way. They may have more conservative or liberal tendencies, but to think that that all Justices will vote the way that people want to pigeonhole them into is ridiculous.