Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#241

Post by forrestthewoods » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #167

ff317 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of your examples are about how he looks at the particular issues in this case though. You've arbitrarily grouped this case with the several others above by putting them all on an axis of whether he's anti-consumer or pro-consumer. You may choose to perceive justices on these ideological axes, but these ideological axes are probably not what determines how they vote, even if there are sometimes strong correlation…

It doesn't matter the theory driving his votes, it matters the outcome. If you vote against say, civil rights, because you have some super-nuanced view about how the court can or can not be involved in respect to state politics, you're still propping up Jim Crow laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I strongly agree.

To focus on preferred outcomes rather than strong first principles is a good intention on the path to hell.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#242

Post by fromanator » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

pankajdoharey wrote: post #231

Kye wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well with that logic, i you own a Ford Truck and you dont like their service can you go to Honda service center? the app store.

That's not a very good analogy, Apple makes it impossible to run your own app store in their ecosystem. Ford isn't doing anything to stop others from servicing your vehicle, they still provide parts, training, etc to competing third parties.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#243

Post by pankajdoharey » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:53 PM UTC

hxegon wrote: post #240

pankajdoharey wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well with that logic, i you own a Ford Truck and you dont like their service can you go to Honda service center? the app store.

you can go to an independent mechanic, or a different ford service center.

Well you can install alternative app stores on iOS Devices without jailbreaking. Essentially all you need is a profile for that app store, the entire ecosystem of enterprise Device management in built on this mechanism which provides custom app stores to enterprises.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#244

Post by robbrown451 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

Fellshard wrote: post #176

pier25 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a different opinion on this, but I have a hard time believing desktop users (Linux, Mac, Windows) would accept getting their software only from the computer manufacturer's officially approved store. Would you?

I certainly don't like it, no, but that doesn't make it antitrust in this case. My feelings and desires aren't what determines law, and thank goodness for that.

In a democracy, they kind of are. Indirectly, obviously.

My feelings and desires affect how I vote, and voting affects legislation as well as such things as who gets appointed to the Supreme Court. (and given our legal system, courts determine law as much as legislators do)

I think it is awful that manufacturers of devices have that level of control of who can sell apps to run on them, and I certainly hope enough other people do to affect law. I'm old enough to remember when you could only buy a (landline) phone through Ma Bell, and luckily the law -- via courts of course -- stopped that eventually.

This is very similar, but in my opinion the current issue is a good bit worse that AT&Ts monopoly.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#245

Post by a1369209993 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

pankajdoharey wrote: post #231

Kye wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well with that logic, i you own a Ford Truck and you dont like their service can you go to Honda service center? the app store.

If you can convince Honda to do the work, then yes[0]. You could also go a local mechanic[0]. It is literally not possible for Microsoft et al or a independent programmer to sell you iPhone apps[1].

0: I'm assuming Ford hasn't added some sort of DRM to their vehicles; if they have, then they have a monopoly on maintenance for those vehicles and should be penalized accordingly.

1: They can sell you jailbroken-iPhone apps, but you could also get maintenance on a DRMed truck once you ripped out and replaced all the computer systems, so that's not very relevant.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#246

Post by sjy » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

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…

It's not an easy question, which is why the Supreme Court wasn't asked to decide it in this case. The answer depends on the past 100 years of previous cases interpreting US antitrust law. Those interpretations have been influenced by research and trends in economics. Lina Khan recently became a minor celebrity for her article in the Yale Law Journal critically reviewing this history in the context of today's tech giants, specifically Amazon: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/technology/monopoly-antit...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#247

Post by HeWhoLurksLate » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

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.

A sub-lifetime appointment is also really bad for the Court system, too- the Court gets the final say in the law- and needs independence- and if we were to hold elections every few years for the Supreme Court, we would have an even more partisan government, as people would go campaigning for that office, with all its mud-slinging and hyper-partisanship that seems to be necessary to get elected in the United States' current political climate.

Sometimes, having an old guy say "whoa, slow down! That's a bad idea" is a good idea.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#248

Post by spuz » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

LanceH wrote: post #211

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you mean by this?

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#249

Post by sjy » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:01 PM UTC

GeekyBear wrote: post #221

This would be an example of a class action lawsuit and not an antitrust lawsuit, no? Antitrust lawsuits are brought by the government itself, not consumers. For example, Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated or United States vs. Microsoft Corporation.

Whether it's an antitrust suit depends on whether the plaintiff is suing under the antitrust laws, not whether the plaintiff is the government. "Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides": https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/15

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#250

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

robbrown451 wrote: post #222

eridius wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 still the same damages. Apple is taking money from a transaction between users and developers. It effectively comes equally from both sides of the transaction. 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 devel…

Apple is (allegedly) monopolising a market, which is not the same as skimming a percentage off transactions, and damages do not have to be estimated as a straightforward percentage of all transactions.

A monopoly has structural implications which could disadvantage both customers and developers in ways that go beyond paying x% Apple Tax on each sale.

For example - opportunity costs for both developers and customers, lock-in costs, costs to competitors who might have been able to operate a related market, specific losses for specific developers based on arbitrary, capricious, or self-serving app store exclusions, and so on.

None of this has been proven yet, all of it is debatable, and it could all be included in potential arguments.

This is bad news for Apple - not just because any judgement could be worth tens of billions, but because of potential bad PR and brand damage, which may happen however the final judgement goes. And also because of the distraction from more constructive goals.