8 ms·

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 c

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 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204

randyrand 7y ago
2/3 of those are true for every purchase you make on your phone. 3/3 of those are true for some digital products like amazon kindle books even where you buy from amazon, not apple. Or put another way, those are therefor clearly not the correct questions to be asking.
- filoleg 7y ago
  I think that’s why you cannot buy kindle books from the amazon app on iOS.
bluGill 7y ago
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. In short, by taking 8 years, many smart people have spent 8 years thinking about the issue. There is a good chance that nobody will think of a different argument that is compelling. Unfortunately law is not math. There are no fundamental truths to start from. It is a matter of conflicting opinions. We will never be sure that they are right or wrong, but at least they carefully considered their decision trying to get it right.
- Gene_Parmesan 7y ago
  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-iphone-antitrust-litig-1 https://casetext.com/case/schwartz-v-apple-inc-in-re-apple-i....
  - bluGill 7y ago
    The entire process you outlined is there for the reasons I stated.
benologist 7y ago
8 years and they're still yet to get to court. Macbook owners with bad keyboards are probably looking at 1 - 2 decades before their settlement checks arrive!
derefr 7y ago
I see what you’re implying, but tweak one little thing and the answer seems vastly different: Instead of an Apple device, say you’re using a Google-manufactured Android device (something-or-other), and have installed a third-party App Store on it. But that third-party App Store turns around and uses Google Pay as its payment processor. All the same qualifications still apply: you essentially used a “Google POS device” (your phone), were routed through Google payment processing, and the results were deployed to a Google device (your phone again.) But from the perspective of the seller, you were just using an arbitrary Android device to run their App Store on; and Google, to them, is just the payment-processor they chose to use (probably because it’s conveniently integrated on Android devices) but they could have just-as-well used PayPal or Stripe. Is this third-party App Store—in this particular case—legally “Google?” Even though, in other cases, where people are using other non-Google Android devices to access the store, or maybe selecting a different payment-processor option at checkout, they definitely aren’t legally Google? I would say “obviously no.” Those apps were legally sold by the third-party App Store. Google was just a payment processor there. (Payment processors still also have legal responsibilities regarding the transaction, but they’re different than those of the seller.) And if that’s true, then what’s the difference between a third-party App Store that you installed as its own app, and a “third-party App Store” that is a section of the Apple App Store app, e.g. a Microsoft section or Adobe section? Isn’t that the same as, say, buying from a physical Microsoft store in an Apple-owned shopping mall? And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one? I feel like this is something that’s unclear enough that you could spent eight years arguing the various precedents behind deciding either way.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- holy_city 7y ago
  >And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one? To use your analogy, the line is if someone can set up their own shop outside the mall. As a consumer, if I have no way to avoid purchasing from a store inside a single mall then I'm effectively purchasing from the mall itself. At least in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
Yes. The entire crux of Apple's argument is that you aren't Apple's customer. The true motives of a corporation often come out in court.
- lallysingh 7y ago
  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 look at it. And the court (correctly) said no.
  - parthdesai 7y ago
    >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.
    - chii 7y ago
      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?
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        Potentially both? At least if I want my customers to imagine so because thinking I value them inspires them to spend more money I wouldn't say out loud that they weren't
      - parthdesai 7y ago
        If you don't maintain the mall, shoppers won't come to your mall and this in turn will drive the stores away. So you stores are your primary customers and shoppers are your secondary customers.
simonh 7y ago
No, it's not at all about who you are buying from, that is simply not an issue in the case. It's about what is allegedly being monopolised and who is directly harmed.

randyrand 7y ago

2/3 of those are true for every purchase you make on your phone. 3/3 of those are true for some digital products like amazon kindle books even where you buy from amazon, not apple. Or put another way, those are therefor clearly not the correct questions to be asking.

filoleg 7y ago
I think that’s why you cannot buy kindle books from the amazon app on iOS.

bluGill 7y ago

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. In short, by taking 8 years, many smart people have spent 8 years thinking about the issue. There is a good chance that nobody will think of a different argument that is compelling. Unfortunately law is not math. There are no fundamental truths to start from. It is a matter of conflicting opinions. We will never be sure that they are right or wrong, but at least they carefully considered their decision trying to get it right.

Gene_Parmesan 7y ago
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-iphone-antitrust-litig-1 https://casetext.com/case/schwartz-v-apple-inc-in-re-apple-i....
- bluGill 7y ago
  The entire process you outlined is there for the reasons I stated.

benologist 7y ago

8 years and they're still yet to get to court. Macbook owners with bad keyboards are probably looking at 1 - 2 decades before their settlement checks arrive!

derefr 7y ago

I see what you’re implying, but tweak one little thing and the answer seems vastly different: Instead of an Apple device, say you’re using a Google-manufactured Android device (something-or-other), and have installed a third-party App Store on it. But that third-party App Store turns around and uses Google Pay as its payment processor. All the same qualifications still apply: you essentially used a “Google POS device” (your phone), were routed through Google payment processing, and the results were deployed to a Google device (your phone again.) But from the perspective of the seller, you were just using an arbitrary Android device to run their App Store on; and Google, to them, is just the payment-processor they chose to use (probably because it’s conveniently integrated on Android devices) but they could have just-as-well used PayPal or Stripe. Is this third-party App Store—in this particular case—legally “Google?” Even though, in other cases, where people are using other non-Google Android devices to access the store, or maybe selecting a different payment-processor option at checkout, they definitely aren’t legally Google? I would say “obviously no.” Those apps were legally sold by the third-party App Store. Google was just a payment processor there. (Payment processors still also have legal responsibilities regarding the transaction, but they’re different than those of the seller.) And if that’s true, then what’s the difference between a third-party App Store that you installed as its own app, and a “third-party App Store” that is a section of the Apple App Store app, e.g. a Microsoft section or Adobe section? Isn’t that the same as, say, buying from a physical Microsoft store in an Apple-owned shopping mall? And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one? I feel like this is something that’s unclear enough that you could spent eight years arguing the various precedents behind deciding either way.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
holy_city 7y ago
>And if that’s true, then where’s the line between that and “each app you purchase is purchased from its own little stall in this digital mall, which is owned and operated by the software author”? Is there one? To use your analogy, the line is if someone can set up their own shop outside the mall. As a consumer, if I have no way to avoid purchasing from a store inside a single mall then I'm effectively purchasing from the mall itself. At least in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer.

kevin_b_er 7y ago

Yes. The entire crux of Apple's argument is that you aren't Apple's customer. The true motives of a corporation often come out in court.

lallysingh 7y ago
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 look at it. And the court (correctly) said no.
- parthdesai 7y ago
  >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.
  - chii 7y ago
    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?
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      Potentially both? At least if I want my customers to imagine so because thinking I value them inspires them to spend more money I wouldn't say out loud that they weren't
    - parthdesai 7y ago
      If you don't maintain the mall, shoppers won't come to your mall and this in turn will drive the stores away. So you stores are your primary customers and shoppers are your secondary customers.

simonh 7y ago

No, it's not at all about who you are buying from, that is simply not an issue in the case. It's about what is allegedly being monopolised and who is directly harmed.