5 ms·

> The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. That's your opinion. That is not what's supported by our curre

> The issue is that I, a user of an iPhone, should be able to install whatever software I want. That's your opinion. That is not what's supported by our current technology/copyright/intellectual property-related laws. Please be clear about that.

gamblor956 6y ago
That is not what's supported by our current technology/copyright/intellectual property-related laws. That is your opinion. Please be clear about that. Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws. It's not a matter of what the user wants. It's a matter of Apple abusing its market position.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- threeseed 6y ago
  > Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws Please provide legal documents equivocally stating this.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890
    - danbolt 6y ago
      Just to clarify, in this case, Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services?
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services? Sort of. There are two possible avenues of attack here against Apple. And it depends on how the market is defined. 1: if the "market" is defined as you have, which is a "monopoly on apple services", then it absolutely true that Apple does have a monopoly on the specific market as defined by "Apple services", and I would accept 10 to 1 betting odds on that. BUT, I think it is a bit of a stretch that the "market" will be defined that narrowly. Instead I think that the market will be defined as the smartphone market share of the USA. 2: If the market is defined as the smartphone market, in the USA, then the argument will be that Apple has control of ~50% of the market, in a 2 entity duopoly. It is a common misconception, that anti-trust law only applies in cases, of a overwhelming singular monopoly. Instead, anti-trust law, applies even in cases where there is not a singular monopoly, and the company in question only has significant market power. Controlling 50% of the market share, is a bit on the edge of whether anti-trust law applies, or does not apply, as according to government guidance. So the case is far from a slam dunk, and I think that there will be interesting arguments brought up in court. But, even though Apple has less market share than, say Microsoft did, when Microsoft lost their anti-trust case, I think that Apple's actions are significantly more restrictive than Microsoft's was, and thus this contributing factor will push them over the edge into losing the case. I expect that this case will be a landmark case, that will determine future court actions, and will be even more significant than the microsoft case was.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        No, Apple, among other things, has violated the laws against anticompetitive behavior by attempting to exert its market dominance in one market (iPhones) over a separate market (app stores) by engaging in punitive and market-distortive actions against potential competitors. Similar antitrust violations of the same nature: iMusic vs Spotify, iChat vs Hey/other chat programs, Apple Webkit vs all other browsers. I would have included Apple Pay but in that instance Apple lost, largely because their actions in other markets made it extremely undesirable for merchants and payment processors to get behind Apple's vision of Apple Pay in which Apple skimmed X% for providing absolutely no value to the transaction. In fact, so many retailers found Apple to be an undesirable partner that a number of major retailers disabled Apple Pay integration on their NFC-capable payment terminals. For example, most Kroger locations (like Ralphs) take Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Garmin Pay, and most other app-based NFC payment methods...but not Apple Pay. (Apple's situation is similar to American Express, which also charges significantly higher rates to retailers than its competitors, but unlike Apple, Amex actually processes transactions and theoretically provides valule to retailers, just not enough to justify its Appleesque rates.)
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Epic alleges Apple has violated the Sherman Act. They have not proven this in a court of law, nor is it clear that they actually will succeed in doing so.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      It's not actually the Sherman Antitrust Act they violate, since that law specifically requires a monopoly. It's the followup laws broadening the Sherman Antitrust Act that Apple violates. The amendments to the Sherman Act target anti-competitive behavior that results in market distortive effects, even in the absence of a monopoly. This includes price-fixing, collusion, and using leverage in one market to interfere with the market dynamics of another (usually smaller) market (see, e.g., Microsoft). There is at least one landmark case in which minor market participants were found to have violated the antitrust laws because their collusion would have anticompetitive effects even though their combined market share was less than half of the market, though the case dates to a more active time in antitrust jurisprudence. Apple is no stranger to anti-competitive behavior; they are in fact the banner case for the last big antitrust case...which similarly did not involve a monopoly of any sort. (The book price-fixing case.)
      - nodamage 6y ago
        This is almost entirely wrong. The Sherman Act has 2 sections. Section 1 prohibits actions like price fixing and bid rigging regardless of market power. It's section 2 that prohibits monopolization and requires monopoly power. The majority of antitrust claims are brought under the Sherman Act. Apple's ebook price fixing case was brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. All of Epic's federal claims against Apple are alleged violations of the Sherman Act.

gamblor956 6y ago

That is not what's supported by our current technology/copyright/intellectual property-related laws. That is your opinion. Please be clear about that. Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws. It's not a matter of what the user wants. It's a matter of Apple abusing its market position.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
threeseed 6y ago
> Currently, what Apple is doing violates EU and US antitrust laws Please provide legal documents equivocally stating this.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890
  - danbolt 6y ago
    Just to clarify, in this case, Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services?
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Apple has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act due to having a monopoly on Apple services? Sort of. There are two possible avenues of attack here against Apple. And it depends on how the market is defined. 1: if the "market" is defined as you have, which is a "monopoly on apple services", then it absolutely true that Apple does have a monopoly on the specific market as defined by "Apple services", and I would accept 10 to 1 betting odds on that. BUT, I think it is a bit of a stretch that the "market" will be defined that narrowly. Instead I think that the market will be defined as the smartphone market share of the USA. 2: If the market is defined as the smartphone market, in the USA, then the argument will be that Apple has control of ~50% of the market, in a 2 entity duopoly. It is a common misconception, that anti-trust law only applies in cases, of a overwhelming singular monopoly. Instead, anti-trust law, applies even in cases where there is not a singular monopoly, and the company in question only has significant market power. Controlling 50% of the market share, is a bit on the edge of whether anti-trust law applies, or does not apply, as according to government guidance. So the case is far from a slam dunk, and I think that there will be interesting arguments brought up in court. But, even though Apple has less market share than, say Microsoft did, when Microsoft lost their anti-trust case, I think that Apple's actions are significantly more restrictive than Microsoft's was, and thus this contributing factor will push them over the edge into losing the case. I expect that this case will be a landmark case, that will determine future court actions, and will be even more significant than the microsoft case was.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      No, Apple, among other things, has violated the laws against anticompetitive behavior by attempting to exert its market dominance in one market (iPhones) over a separate market (app stores) by engaging in punitive and market-distortive actions against potential competitors. Similar antitrust violations of the same nature: iMusic vs Spotify, iChat vs Hey/other chat programs, Apple Webkit vs all other browsers. I would have included Apple Pay but in that instance Apple lost, largely because their actions in other markets made it extremely undesirable for merchants and payment processors to get behind Apple's vision of Apple Pay in which Apple skimmed X% for providing absolutely no value to the transaction. In fact, so many retailers found Apple to be an undesirable partner that a number of major retailers disabled Apple Pay integration on their NFC-capable payment terminals. For example, most Kroger locations (like Ralphs) take Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Garmin Pay, and most other app-based NFC payment methods...but not Apple Pay. (Apple's situation is similar to American Express, which also charges significantly higher rates to retailers than its competitors, but unlike Apple, Amex actually processes transactions and theoretically provides valule to retailers, just not enough to justify its Appleesque rates.)
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Epic alleges Apple has violated the Sherman Act. They have not proven this in a court of law, nor is it clear that they actually will succeed in doing so.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    It's not actually the Sherman Antitrust Act they violate, since that law specifically requires a monopoly. It's the followup laws broadening the Sherman Antitrust Act that Apple violates. The amendments to the Sherman Act target anti-competitive behavior that results in market distortive effects, even in the absence of a monopoly. This includes price-fixing, collusion, and using leverage in one market to interfere with the market dynamics of another (usually smaller) market (see, e.g., Microsoft). There is at least one landmark case in which minor market participants were found to have violated the antitrust laws because their collusion would have anticompetitive effects even though their combined market share was less than half of the market, though the case dates to a more active time in antitrust jurisprudence. Apple is no stranger to anti-competitive behavior; they are in fact the banner case for the last big antitrust case...which similarly did not involve a monopoly of any sort. (The book price-fixing case.)
    - nodamage 6y ago
      This is almost entirely wrong. The Sherman Act has 2 sections. Section 1 prohibits actions like price fixing and bid rigging regardless of market power. It's section 2 that prohibits monopolization and requires monopoly power. The majority of antitrust claims are brought under the Sherman Act. Apple's ebook price fixing case was brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. All of Epic's federal claims against Apple are alleged violations of the Sherman Act.