Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#401

Post by HDThoreaun » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:44 PM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #394

thealexliang wrote: post #44

"Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anti-competitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anti-competitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, the…

There will be a fine. Nobody will go to jail. Apple will appeal. They will likely prevail on this "steering" complaint on a freedom of speech basis. It is their platform afterall. My concern is more about having private companies control platforms upon which we depend. I do often wish that I had a crystal ball to peer a decade or several into the future to see what the future holds for humanity in this regard. Our le…

The far bigger question is about the 27% fee on purchases made outside the apple ecosystem. If this ruling is upheld that revenue stream is gone

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#402

Post by DannyBee » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:45 PM UTC

Wobbles42 wrote: post #396

DannyBee wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyer here - that's not how these things work. This is definitely non-compliant. Injunctions are, intentionally, required only to "describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained or required". The key being "reasonable". They are not required to specify every detail, or every wrong or right thing, especially when the party being enjoined knows more of the details of how things work than the court does. You…

Would this still be clear bad faith had these chat logs not been created? In other words, could Apple have done these exact same actions and successfully argued that the language ("external website") was in fact neutral, if not for the direct written record that established their intent to do otherwise? Everything you just said makes sense, but the details of how the courts manage to enforce orders like this are inte…

"Would this still be clear bad faith had these chat logs not been created?"

Yes, almost certainly. The party claiming non-compliance has to prove your non-compliance, but they do not have to prove your bad faith.

Instead, the burden falls to the enjoined party to prove good faith.

Affirmative good faith usually comes up more in trying to dissolve injunctions, etc (where the enjoined party has to prove good faith) than civil contempt of an order.

This is because in the case of civil contempt, Judges still have discretion to find you in contempt even if you acted in good faith. IE bad faith will definitely get you contempt, but good faith alone will not save you from it. You can act in good faith, not do enough, and still be found in contempt for not doing enough. This helps dissuade malicious compliance as well.

See, generally, mccomb and friends:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/336/187/

"The absence of willfulness does not relieve from civil contempt. Civil as distinguished from criminal contempt is a sanction to enforce compliance with an order of the court or to compensate for losses or damages sustained by reason of noncompliance . . . . Since the purpose is remedial, it matters not with what intent the defendant did the prohibited act . . . . An act does not cease to be a violation of a law and of a decree merely because it may have been done innocently. The force and vitality of judicial decrees derive from more robust sanctions. And the grant or withholding of remedial relief is not wholly discretionary with the judge. . . . The private or public rights that the decree sought to protect are an important measure of the remedy."

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#403

Post by rahkiin » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:46 PM UTC

galleywest200 wrote: post #52

cuuupid wrote: post #43

Does this mean Apple will have to give up their % fees or that they have to allow third party app stores in the US? And when does that go into effect?

> Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the iPhone-maker to allow developers to steer users to alternative methods of paying for services or subscriptions offered in the App Store. The company also can no longer impose fees in such scenarios or restrict the ability of software-makers to offer links or otherwise communicate alternate payment options with consumers. The ruling means this starts immediately it seems, as…

So : make a free app. Ask people to buy the non-free version on a website. Apple gets 0. No revenue at all for providing stable apis and sdks? How’s that sustainable? The app store itself would be a gigantic loss leader that has to be paid for by iphone sales.

If console makers have to do the same, consoles triple in price

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#404

Post by muro » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:47 PM UTC

codetrotter wrote: post #301

virgoerns wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSJ probably updated the article. Here's the newer link: https://archive.is/20250501040217/https://www.wsj.com/tech/a...

Makes sense. The original link says “updates to follow as news develop” at the bottom. And I guess they really meant that – that they were planning on expanding on it already when they first published the initial, short version of it.

The court decision is worth the read, you can skip all articles.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#405

Post by jillyboel » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:48 PM UTC

graemep wrote: post #384

avar wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most shocking thing to me about that isn't the malicious compliance, but that even after a court injunction, and fully knowing that there could be subsequent discovery, they have people putting something like that in writing . Seriously, this is one of the top 10 largest companies in the world, and they're playing chicken with the court in order to preserve their ongoing revenue. These weren't random employees, b…

> Seriously, this is one of the top 10 largest companies in the world, and they're playing chicken with the court in order to preserve their ongoing revenue. Maybe that is a result of the attitudes that made them one of the largest companies in the world?

Other way around. Too big to fail and individual employees are too isolated from any consequences so they have no reason to give a shit.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#406

Post by joshkel » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:50 PM UTC

poincaredisk wrote: post #391

joshkel wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not universally true, at least. From https://www.macobserver.com/news/tim-cook-rejects-ncppr-poli... : > “When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind,” he said, “I don't consider the bloody ROI.” He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. > As evidenced by the use of “bloody” in his response—the closest thing to public profanit…

>“I don't consider the bloody ROI.” He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. ...and you believed him? I'm sorry, I'm trying to be less cynical in life, but he said exactly what people - apple fans - want to hear. Is he above lying? We were just discussing how one of the apple executives straight up lied in court .

Belief within limits, yes. At least, I can only think of a couple of possible explanations for the event:

1. Cook only cares about pursuing profits, but at a shareholder meeting where shareholders were pressuring him to pursue profits, he lied to them (and had the presence of mind and acting chops to pretend to be uncharacteristically angry about it), because he believed that the story would get reported on and Apple fans would want to hear it, and he made the calculation that that would be more beneficial to his bottom line than being honest (or at least more politically neutral) with his shareholders.

2. Cook really does believe about accessibility, environmental issues, and worker safety, and he tries (or at least likes to think that he tries) to take steps toward those causes at the expense of profits, but he's also a complex and flawed mixture of motivations and is capable of compromising his values (and/or of letting those under him compromise their values) to varying degrees in the face of financial rewards or the pressures of the capitalist system.

#2 seems more likely and is more consistent with my view of humanity in general.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#407

Post by jillyboel » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:50 PM UTC

Gareth321 wrote: post #297

caf wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase "incandescent with rage" comes to mind when reading that order. A couple of choice quotes: To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The Court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competit…

She also referred Alex Roman's actions and everyone else complicit for review of contempt of court, which carries a possible prison sentence. I never thought Apple would outright defy the courts to the degree they'd risk a prison term for the executives.

> I never thought Apple would outright defy the courts to the degree they'd risk a prison term for the executives.

He probably got offered a couple mil for a slap on the wrist, he likely won't even be jailed for a day. Why wouldn't they lie? They have the money to get away with it.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#408

Post by jillyboel » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:53 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #373

raincole wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not even sure how "external website" is malicious compliance. Yes, I know the intention is to sound scary. But external website is the correct, neutral term which means... external website.

To you and me, sure. On the other hand, I wonder if is intended to scare people who like and want the safety of the apple ecosystem and perceive everything as outside of it as dark web. Come to think of it, that is kinda how I see dark web.. is there a scarier place on line than that?

You're posting on HN and you think regular websites are the "dark web"? Do you think HN is the dark web?

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#409

Post by ImJamal » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:53 PM UTC

petesergeant wrote: post #313

satvikpendem wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't trust that Apple is honest about their privacy commitments This is a funny comment for me to read. Did anyone honestly think that Apple was touting privacy as anything other than a competitive advantage for revenue maximization? They've had things like iAd, their services revenue has grown massively as hardware sales plateau, and they are nowhere near as "private" in certain countries either.

I have no trouble believing a gay boomer from the South instinctively cares about personal privacy; he will have spent much of his early life needing to be very protective of his.

That is why he does service in China where the government has full access to all cloud data.

Re: Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds

#410

Post by autobodie » Thu, May 01, 2025, 1:53 PM UTC

Gareth321 wrote: post #299

autobodie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About time for what? Another company to get charged with something that they don't get punished for? The fines are always less than the companies' net gains from the practice. Gains are often indirect, risk-related, and/or part of a larger strategy, so they cannot be calculated. Everything short of prison is a waste of time, waste of tax dollars, and spits in the face of decent citizens.

The judge referred the case for review of contempt of court, which makes individuals responsible for their criminal actions, and carries possible prison sentences. The judge has clear evidence of lying under oath and withholding evidence, and people have gone to prison for less. Alex Roman appears primarily culpable, but given the evidence reported, Tim Cook may also be complicit, and others. There is a real chance t…

>There is a real chance they are arrested at some point.

Let's put money on it. I'll put $10k on it.