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

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#261

Post by vorpalhex » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

forrestthewoods wrote: post #241

vorpalhex wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Read up on Baker v Carr which touched on the issue of redistricting. Specifically on whether the court could intervene in a state perogative case. On one side were a set of justices who believed that the court couldn't since they would be interfering in state matters. On the other side were justices who believed the court was the only possible body who could restore the voting power of minorities.

Strong first principles are great when we're arguing philosophy but it's pretty bad when we're preventing millions from exercising a fundamental right. The soldier who carries out atrocities because he believes in the duty of following orders is no less guilty of the atrocity.

This doesn't mean that the end justifies the means but it means that we must judge our course of action and the actions of others with their full weight, not only intention or goal but the direct cost too.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#262

Post by michaelmrose » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:32 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.

A standard pc keeps unauthorized users from modifying the system to protect you.

It does not protect your oem from competition.

Pretending that this isn't extraordinary is a very questionable tactic that Apple has handled in an innovative fashion.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#263

Post by sieabahlpark » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:32 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.

That's why you don't let a single political side appoint all of the judges, regardless of what side you reside on. You don't have a balance of opinions if everyone has the same opinion.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#264

Post by tomp » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #117

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!

It gives me a little hope that the justices sometimes still had their own opinions instead of just following the party line as they often do.

Why would they follow the party line? They literally don't answer to anyone except their own conscience. In addition, they can remain in power for decades, during which time a party's policies can change drastically...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#265

Post by sieabahlpark » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:35 PM UTC

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.

That completely eliminates the judiciary branch as an effective check against the other two.

It's unfortunate but having a stalemate is the best course to eliminate rash changes to government when there is a lot of divisiveness.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#266

Post by sieabahlpark » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

jethro_tell wrote: post #195

luckylion wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Being well regarded in the history books" is something that a president or a king should strive for. A judge really shouldn't ever look out for his popularity when making decisions.

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

Lol judges interpret the law written in English as is. It's not whether it makes you feel good or not.

I'm sure plenty of people who voted Hitler thought they were in the right side of history until they suddenly weren't. That's the unfortunate part of politics, you have to build a system around not trusting people.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#267

Post by skybrian » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #216

skybrian wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pop…

I'm not sure there is much of a distinction in practice between asking "how will history see this" and trying to do what's right? You don't get a magic ball to find out what will actually be popular. It's just a way of putting yourself in a state of mind to take a more long-term view of things.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#268

Post by pier25 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

Fellshard wrote: post #259

pier25 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consumers were well aware of Internet Explorer not being removable from Windows too. So?

This is incoherent, non sequitur. Again, we're talking about two different categories of devices: general computing vs. non-general. At the moment, smartphones are non-general, insofar as they are not made for user programmability from the device itself. Secondly, that MS case is a different matter than the one cited here, and does not map well onto this case. Thirdly, the major precedent of the original ruling appea…

1. Apple advertised the iPad (which is also an iOS device) as a laptop replacement.

2. My point is not to compare the two cases, legally speaking, but you argued that "consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase". Well, consumers were well aware of the limitations of Windows and that didn't change the fact that Microsoft was charged with unlawful monopolization.

3. Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#269

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

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

#270

Post by eridius » Mon, May 13, 2019, 10:53 PM UTC

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #250

robbrown451 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

The problem with the "monopolizing a market" idea is the fact that "Apple devices" is not a meaningful market, and within the actual "smartphone" market Apple very clearly does not have a monopoly.