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

291–300 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#291

Post by chii »

parthdesai wrote: post #95
lallysingh wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not fair. Your lawyer should make any arguments they need to defend you, even if they're not what you believe. As long as they're not false or misleading, it's good practice. Nobody's claimed that Apple believes that people buying their phones aren't their customers. Apple claimed (IIUC) that in this scenario, it's the app store vendors that are the customer of the app store. Which is a reasonably valid way to…

>As long as they're not false or misleading So either Apple is misleading us when they say we are their customers or they are flat out lying to get out of a lawsuit. Can't have your cake and eat it too, mate.

If you own a shopping centre, and rent out the spaces to shops, do shoppers at those stores count as customers of the store, or of the shopping centre owner?

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#292

Post by jessriedel »

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.)

Agree with Kye. In general, SCOTUSblog is a vastly better source on all Supreme Court cases than any traditional news site.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#293

Post by wdn »

I think this is BS. The developer is not required to release their apps on the Apple platform. The consumers can elect not to buy Apple's product.

Now this case can proceed, then what stops consumers or sellers from suing Amazon, eBay or Google Express? They are a monopoly in their own domain.

Amazon, for example, charges 15% for sellers fulfilled for every sale. The fee is even higher if the seller elects to be filled by Amazon.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#294

Post by nazgulnarsil »

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.

I'm a visionary, he's politicking, they're ideologues.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#295

Post by inlined »

gowld wrote: post #272
eridius wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the app market for iPhone users.

And notably Apple locks out some companies from the same kind of integrations that 1P apps get. The only use I have for Safari is that it’s the browser most apps open. And Apple won’t release Siri actions for music, putting Spotify at a big disadvantage.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#296

Post by dathinab »

eridius wrote: post #204
Radle wrote: post #68

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.

No, it's the same "root" cause but different kind of damage.

Let's say you burn down a concert hall _with the intention to prevent the concert_. Then you have two different kinds of damages:

- Destroyed Concert Hall => The owner of the hall suing you because you destroyed their property.

- Prevented Concert => The visitors (trying to) sue you for "preventing" the concert.

Sure, in case of the concert I would be surprised if the second case goes anywhere, but then the situation wrt. the app store is way more complex.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#297

Post by chj »

pankajdoharey wrote: post #243
hxegon wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, you can't distribute apps directly to customers. That's why Facebook's certificate got revoked by Apple.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/01/facebook-and-google-...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#298

Post by rayiner »

dragonwriter wrote: post #255
ashelmire wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 year staggered appointments. So 3 justices terms are up every 2 years. Means one president doesn't get to completely stack the court, but each has a fair impact on it, and we aren't stuck with judges with outdated ideologies forever (unless people vote for it).

> 6 year staggered appointments. So 3 justices terms are up every 2 years. Means one president doesn't get to completely stack the court Most presidents are reelected to two terms, and so if judicial terms were offset from Presidential terms by a year, they'd have: At 0 years, 0 justices they appointed. At 1 year, 3 justices. At 3 years, 6 justices. At 5-8 years (and up until 1 year into the next term), all 9 justice…

Would be psyched to live in a world where Bush II got to appoint the entire Supreme Court after 9/11.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#299

Post by threeseed »

michaelmrose wrote: post #262
threeseed wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Apple can legitimately claim that the App Store protect users as well.

And it's not extraordinary at all. These days any device with apps/games has their own store e.g. Nintendo, PS, XBox, Fitbit, Thermomix etc.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#300

Post by chj »

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.)

A very good read. I didn't expect a court opinion could be written in such clear language.
Post reply on HN