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

81–90 of 357 posts

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#81

Post by briandear »

yxhuvud wrote: post #65
DannyBee wrote: post #10

I wrote comments on this case here in the past, and not gonna rewrite them, so here is the TL;DR: This was not unexpected but precedent was on Apple's side. Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. This is technically true. In that situation, Illinois Brick/etc would normally say consumers cannot sue you, only app developers can. Mo…

> Apple was basically playing the "whoa, we don't sell apps, we just make an app store. They buy apps from the developers" card. Well, one thing is certain, and that is that Spotify will be happy with this as it may end up making their competition against Apple Music a bit easier.

Now all Spotify needs to do is pay artists as much as Apple does. Perhaps an antitrust case might be launched by artists against Spotify?

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#82

Post by rectang »

davidu wrote: post #40
joezydeco wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I've seen some speculation that after all the awfulness of the confirmation hearings accusing him of being a hard-right leaning justice that he would actually try (consciously or not) to show he's not locked into that mindset.

That certainly could be true. I like to believe supreme court justices remember that with that role comes with the truest ability to be impartial and unbeholden.

The justices probably don't believe that they are partisan. Rather, they believe that their own perspectives represent objective truth.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#83

Post by macleginn »

DannyBee wrote: post #25
dmix wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's argument was that 3rd parties set the prices on their platform not them (app developers), so they shouldn't be held liable for the monopolistic effects this creates.

That is mostly irrelevant to this part of the case, which was about standing. Your parent comment (which is getting downvoted) is correct. Under previous precedent (Illinois Brick), only app developers would have standing to sue, and that is what apple argued should happen here.

How can this be irrelevant to this part of the case if this is precisely why, as per Apple, end users don't have standing? The court rejects this argument and points out that who sets the prices is actually a technicality, which is less important than who buys from whom.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#84

Post by zamalek »

DannyBee wrote: post #25
dmix wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's argument was that 3rd parties set the prices on their platform not them (app developers), so they shouldn't be held liable for the monopolistic effects this creates.

That is mostly irrelevant to this part of the case, which was about standing. Your parent comment (which is getting downvoted) is correct. Under previous precedent (Illinois Brick), only app developers would have standing to sue, and that is what apple argued should happen here.

Despite what the Apple lawyers claimed, wouldn't the actual interpretation be: Apple could sue app developers? The developers are the ones "producing the concrete bricks" and Apple is the one "directly purchasing the concrete bricks." By arguing this way for this case, and setting precedent, Apple would have been able to manufacture a loop hole by subsequently using the more accurate interpretation.

It's a very healthy precedent for app stores, regardless.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#85

Post by Gene_Parmesan »

bluGill wrote: post #23
cabaalis wrote: post #5

Am I reading correctly that this argument has now been going on for 8 years, or at minimum nearly 6? [1] An argument about who I am buying from when I type my credit card into Apple's system, click a purchase button on an Apple device, and then use the results of that purchase solely on Apple devices? [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204

Not surprising. The supreme court typically takes a long time to get involved with anything. They are the final word, so they must get it right. Thus they want lots of other lawyers and judges to spend time coming up with all arguments and working out all angles. The worst possible thing would be for them to issue a final ruling, only to realize they are wrong because of some line of reasoning nobody had thought of.…

That's not why they took 8 years at all. You just pulled this out of your ass? Or...? It took 8 years because of the long, complicated procedural history -- complaints filed, motions to dismiss, appeals to decisions re: motions to dismiss, re-filed complaints, re-filed motions to dismiss, re-filed appeals to decisions re: motions to dismiss, and you get the point.

The Supreme Court can't hear a case until they have jurisdiction. Generally, that means the case has to be heard by the District Court, then heard under appeal by the Court of Appeals for the relevant circuit, and only then can the process to request cert begin. Furthermore, there generally has to be some "split" between circuits in order for SCOTUS to hear a case -- in other words, the case presents some sort of conflict in federal law, with certain circuits holding one way and the rest holding another.

There are slowdowns at every step because of (a) how busy the courts are (particularly SCOTUS, it's usually around a year from cert request to hearing the case, then another several months before the decision comes out), but also (b) because at each step in a case, us lawyers will appeal every adverse decision we can, which is what you see in this case.

But as soon as they can hear the case, they do -- or at least put it on the docket, which (like I said) can be slow moving due to the huge volume of cases where people are requesting cert.

You can see the procedural history outlined in the circuit court's opinion -- https://casetext.com/case/schwartz-v-apple-inc-in-re-apple-i....

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#87

Post by khawkins »

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!

I think the fact that he sided with the liberal justices in favor of Planned Parenthood was less expected [1]. Especially considering his hearings were plagued with disruptions and protests from pro-choice activists.

[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/10/supreme-court-plan...

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#88

Post by simonh »

Radle wrote: post #68
bitwize wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It held that Apple could be sued by end users . Apple's argument was that only app developers had standing.

"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…

Yep absolutely, it would just have to be in different ways.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#89

Post by jdsully »

briandear wrote: post #76
jdsully wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard oil used to dump product in competitive markets too. Low prices do not preclude a monopoly nor does the existence of some competition.

So hundreds of thousands of app developers are conspiring to keep app prices low? That would involve coordination which is essentially impossible for the numbers of app developers. The developer of Tiny Wings isn’t calling Rockstar Games to agree on prices. Without such coordination, there isn’t any “dumping.” Standard Oil was a sole supplier, while the App Store has thousands of suppliers who all set their prices ba…

It’s perfectly normal to dump product if it drives sales of your main product. In this case it’s the iPhone that benefits from cheap apps. The App Store has been instrumental in keeping prices down - a major way they do this is by not allowing demos. Who’s going to risk $50 without seeing it first?

I’d refer you to this Joel Spolsky article which explains it: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

You see this strategy everywhere in tech. It’s not by accident.

Re: Supreme Court rules antitrust lawsuit against Apple can proceed

#90

Post by vorpalhex »

fastball wrote: post #27

It would be nice if people in this thread could stop expressing surprise that Justice Kavanaugh sided the way he did when these people presumably have no idea which way Kavanaugh has decided for similar cases in the past.

This is flippant and non-helpful. If you disagree with how his record is characterized, then please post counter examples. But let me post the following:

+ Rejected challenges to NSA authority

+ Rejected workers rights to picket

+ Opinionated diverting public funds to religion schools

+ Rejected meat labeling requirements

+ Repeatedly restricted the EPA

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-tr...

Kavanaugh is highly anti-consumer. That he's sided with consumers in this case is very surprising to me.

Post reply on HN