4 ms·
That could be seen as abusing their monopoly. Judges tend to take a dim view of that.
by damagednoob 6y ago
That could be seen as abusing their monopoly. Judges tend to take a dim view of that.
- dleslie 6y agoApple does not have a monopoly any more than Ford or Toyota do.
- damagednoob 6y agoUsing your analogy, Ford/Toyota would own the roads. IANAL but this strikes me a lot like the lawsuits Microsoft was being slapped with in the 90s/2000s[1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commissio...
- roywiggins 6y agoFirst Apple needs to be found to have a monopoly.
- izacus 6y agoDidn't Apple fans happily report that Apple collects 120% of all mobile profits? That majority of phones sold in US are iPhones? That Apple market share became majority last year in US?
- roywiggins 6y agoI'm not saying it is or isn't, just that arguing Apple really is a monopoly is going to be a large part of Facebook's case.
- viscanti 6y agoSecond, consumer harm needs to be proven.
- eznzt 6y agoWhere is the consumer harm in not allowing Facebook to track users between apps?
- heavyset_go 6y agoNo, it doesn't. Colloquial definitions of monopoly do not matter when it comes to antitrust laws[1]: > 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. [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...