4 ms·

Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. If you agree Apple is not a monopoly then the worst thing yo

Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. If you agree Apple is not a monopoly then the worst thing you can say is, "I don't think Apple is being very nice." And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?

yyyk 6y ago
Laws are technical document, and as I keep saying, legally a company does not need to be a monopoly to get the law to interfere against it. IIRC, the test in the US is "market power" + "harm to customer welfare", and there's a good case to be made that Apple meets it. Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
- scarface74 6y ago
  The IBM case was dropped after 13 years and nothing came of up. Microsoft was also cited for forcing OEMs to pay for a license for Windows for each PC sold whether or not the PC shipped with Windows.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect. The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      IBM didn’t open up because of suit on mainframes. They really didn’t care about the personal computer market and just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for the operating system. The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
      - yyyk 6y ago
        IBM did wish to maintain control, that's why they copyrighted the BIOS. But when Compaq reversed engineer it, it was obvious that there was no way to sue without inviting more legal scrutiny. My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
        scarface74 6y ago
        That also isn’t true. Compaq had to do a clean room implementation so it wouldn’t get sued. The anti-trust suit was dropped in 1983 - around the same time that Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... No one could argue that IBM is any more than a bit player in PCs in 1983. iMessage is not an “Apple Store app” any more than the phone app. Text messages and phone calls are kind of vital to be called a phone.
- sjy 6y ago
  The law (Sherman Act) does actually say that “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize ... any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” The test you mentioned is basically an attempt to explain the meaning of this contentious word “monopolize.”
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The Sherman Act is not the only relevant law here; the Clayton Act is relevant as law. (And was passed because the Sherman Act was too narrow). You do not need to be a monopoly to violate the Clayton Act, and most antitrust legislation nowadays is I believe brought under that and not the Sherman Act.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      In this case the Sherman Act is relevant because all of Epic's federal claims are brought under the Sherman Act. (There are some California specific claims too.) However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
jcranmer 6y ago
> Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. Whether or not Apple has a monopoly is irrelevant for the antitrust laws.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Epic specifically brought several Sherman Act section 2 claims against Apple. The first step of proving a section 2 claim is establishing monopoly power. So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging) where monopoly power is indeed irrelevant, it is very specifically relevant in the context of Epic's lawsuit against Apple.

yyyk 6y ago

Laws are technical document, and as I keep saying, legally a company does not need to be a monopoly to get the law to interfere against it. IIRC, the test in the US is "market power" + "harm to customer welfare", and there's a good case to be made that Apple meets it. Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.

scarface74 6y ago
The IBM case was dropped after 13 years and nothing came of up. Microsoft was also cited for forcing OEMs to pay for a license for Windows for each PC sold whether or not the PC shipped with Windows.
- yyyk 6y ago
  The legal proceeding terrified IBM to the point the PC became an open system, so they definitely had a market effect. The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    IBM didn’t open up because of suit on mainframes. They really didn’t care about the personal computer market and just got open source parts and paid MS a little money for the operating system. The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
    - yyyk 6y ago
      IBM did wish to maintain control, that's why they copyrighted the BIOS. But when Compaq reversed engineer it, it was obvious that there was no way to sue without inviting more legal scrutiny. My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        That also isn’t true. Compaq had to do a clean room implementation so it wouldn’t get sued. The anti-trust suit was dropped in 1983 - around the same time that Compaq reverse engineered the BIOS. https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-computers-skirted-ibms-patents-and-gave-rise-to-eisa/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp... No one could argue that IBM is any more than a bit player in PCs in 1983. iMessage is not an “Apple Store app” any more than the phone app. Text messages and phone calls are kind of vital to be called a phone.
sjy 6y ago
The law (Sherman Act) does actually say that “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize ... any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” The test you mentioned is basically an attempt to explain the meaning of this contentious word “monopolize.”
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The Sherman Act is not the only relevant law here; the Clayton Act is relevant as law. (And was passed because the Sherman Act was too narrow). You do not need to be a monopoly to violate the Clayton Act, and most antitrust legislation nowadays is I believe brought under that and not the Sherman Act.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    In this case the Sherman Act is relevant because all of Epic's federal claims are brought under the Sherman Act. (There are some California specific claims too.) However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

jcranmer 6y ago

> Actually I do think it matters if Apple is technically a monopoly, as laws are technical documents. Whether or not Apple has a monopoly is irrelevant for the antitrust laws.

nodamage 6y ago
Epic specifically brought several Sherman Act section 2 claims against Apple. The first step of proving a section 2 claim is establishing monopoly power. So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging) where monopoly power is indeed irrelevant, it is very specifically relevant in the context of Epic's lawsuit against Apple.