3 ms·
That’s like saying for an antitrust violation to have occurred, the violator must have previously intentionally not been violating. E.g. Intel can tell PC manu
by dannyw 6y ago
That’s like saying for an antitrust violation to have occurred, the violator must have previously intentionally not been violating.
E.g. Intel can tell PC manufacturers they must not sell AMD devices, if they started with condition when they made their first sale.
I don’t think the courts will buy this argument. What Apple did from Day 0 was anticompetitive.
- zepto 6y agoIt’s unclear how it could have been anticompetitive from day zero. Are you suggesting that all devices capable of running an open operating system must have a way to allow one to be installed? If so, I can get behind that as an actual law worth supporting, but it doesn’t seem like an anti-trust issue.
- dannyw 6y agoNo, I’m suggesting that a company may be pursued for an antitrust remedy even if they have been in continuous violation of it in the beginning. The argument I would be making here is that Apple used illegally bundled its app distribution system with its hardware, and used anticompetitive actions to enforce it.
- zepto 6y agoThey didn’t bundle the app distribution system from day 0. That is part of Saurik’s argument in the legal complaint.