5 ms·

> I think this article is ok: That article is utterly rudimentary reportage. There is no legal analysis, or really any depth of analysis at all. You really sho

> I think this article is ok: That article is utterly rudimentary reportage. There is no legal analysis, or really any depth of analysis at all. You really should seek out specialist analysts like Richard Hoeg who have in-depth, intersectional understanding of both competition law and technology platforms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY If you don't like the idea of watching long-form commentary, his speaking style is clear enough that I find his voice eminently clear at 2X speed. Use the YouTube shortcut keys shift–comma (<) and shift–period (>) to quickly change the playback speed. > Rules can be better defined and updated In the excruciatingly pedantic context of law, "better defined rules" and "updating the rules" are synonymous with changing the rules. You can spin it however you like, but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Out of curiosity, do think that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should also be forced to dissolve control over their platforms as well? > They just can't disallow alternate app stores like they have been doing. Until such time as a law is established to disallow walled gardens of technology platforms, they absolutely can. You are welcome to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to disallow alternate app stores, but arguing for the status quo to be changed is an entirely different argument. It's also worth noting that the law is absolutely on Apple's side when it comes to licensing Apple's intellectual property, which all iOS developers must do in order to use the software development tools they supply. So even if Apple is forced to allow side-loading of alternative stores, there is absolutely no question that Apple would be allowed to require a percentage cut of revenues from apps developed using their tools—just as Epic is entitled to ask of developers who use Unreal Engine. > a link to the Epic brief they filed That is not a brief filed in the Epic vs Apple trial. It doesn't have anything to do with Apple. As far as I can tell, no such amicus brief exists. Yet you seem convinced it does exist and that you've read it.

stale2002 5y ago
> but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Thats an interesting prediction. So you are claiming that the judge in the Apple vs Epic case will not rule against Apple, in any way, on any of its behavior. That is a strong claim for you to be making. And since you have made this prediction, I will be sure to come back to your comments in a couple months. Because I am pretty sure that the judge will rule against Apple on at least some issues. Probably not the whole thing. But there will be some things that Apple is doing, which will be ruled illegal. The real question is, if this happens, will you back off on your extordinarily strong claim, that absolutely nothing that Apple was doing, will be deemed illegal by the judge? Will you admit that maybe you didn't think this all through?
- simondotau 5y ago
  I never made such claim. It is not inconsistent for something to be legal today and then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. It may become illegal in future. My prediction of the outcome is, I think, a coin flip between the Judge ruling entirely in Apple's favour, or a ruling that is mostly in Apple's favour but requires a minor relaxation of certain rules around messaging inside apps about alternative methods of payment. (However even in the event of the latter, this would not represent any impediment to Apple requiring a percentage license fee when payment occurs through an alternative method. In which case it would be moot.) For anyone following the trial directly—not just consuming other people's interpretations—it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way, slicing the thinnest possible piece for Epic. It all hinges upon what the Judge determines to be the relevant market, and what is considered an acceptable substitute under the Sherman act. Somewhat ironically, Epic is a terrible plaintiff in this respect since their games are available on many platforms.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. No actually. It would mean that it was already illegal. Thats why the judge would rule it that way. Judges interpret the law. So yes, if the judge rules this way, then this means that you were wrong to claim that Apple's actions were not illegal. And I look forward to coming back to this post when this happens, so that I can show you the explanation of why the actions were illegal on some fronts. > Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Well if the judge says otherwise, on some fronts, we will be able to look back on this post, and re-evaluate then, won't we? > become illegal in future. No, becoming illegal would be if a legislator changed the law. Instead, this case is about interpreting existing law. So if the judge rules this way, then it means that Apple's actions were illegal. They did not become illegal. They were always illegal. But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then. If the judge disagrees with them, and she says that the actions were illegal, they have already made up an excuse as for why the judge is wrong. Personally, I trust the opinion of the legal system. And that means that if the judge rules that some of the actions were always illegal, then that means that the judge is probably right, and you were wrong. > it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, and you take back your previous statement. Got it. Glad you agree that the judge will likely rule that some of Apple's actions were always illegal.
ece 5y ago
> law is established to disallow walled gardens of technology platforms Like I said, this is already disallowed under the Sherman act, and regulation will make it explicit. If an OS maker had sued Apple for tying a device to the OS, it would be illegal under the Sherman act too. No argument on Apple's tools, there are other tools available. I'm kind of taken aback by your misrepresentation of the open markets institute links I posted. You are being disengenuous when you say there's no such brief.
- simondotau 5y ago
  > I'm kind of taken aback Wow, did you seriously paste a link without reading it? Open Markets Institute did not file an amicus brief in Epic vs Apple. What you linked to is an amicus brief in the matter of Shah vs VHS San Antonio, a substantially different case which pre-dates the Epic lawsuit. Seriously, click on your own link. OMI did release two paragraphs about Epic vs Apple in the form of a press release. Did you think that was an amicus brief? I'm starting to think that maybe you don't know what an amicus brief is. > this is already disallowed under the Sherman act No, it isn't. You do know that the Sherman act doesn't make it illegal to operate a monopoly, right? > If an OS maker had sued Apple for tying a device to the OS, it would be illegal under the Sherman act too. You've just demonstrated that you don't understand what "tying" is in the context of antitrust.
  - ece 5y ago
    I did wrongly assume the brief you mention (Shah vs VHS San Antonio) was submitted in the Epic case but it wasn't. I did skim it and found it relevant on the subject of tying. All I can say is it's a bit confusing, linking to said brief (on August 3), from their statement on the Epic case: https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games-antitrust-suit-against-apple-reveals-again-the-harms-of-tying https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games... If you've followed the case, it's clear what anti-competitive harms Epic is alleging from the iOS app distribution market.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      So when I asked you for reading material that might convince me of your side of the argument, to "get out of [my] bubble", the best you could come up with was a tangentially relevant amicus brief that you hadn't even read, and didn't even know to which case it was submitted? You seriously don't have anything more substantive than that? I have listened to hours upon hours of the actual court proceedings in Epic vs Apple. Have you listened to even a single minute of it? I found Epic's case to be muddled and oftentimes contradictory. Most of their ambitious claims fell quite flat when tested in court. It certainly isn't helped with Tim Sweeney making some fairly ridiculous claims on Twitter, e.g. that Apple's commission should be more like credit card rates. Fairly ridiculous when Epic run the own store, which they admitted isn't yet profitable at a 12.5% commission. And I'm really confused why they couldn't make money on 12.5% since the Epic Games Store is barely more than a shopping cart and game downloader. Hoeg Law's final video includes a contextual refresher on the Sherman act. It's really worth listening to. Just six minutes, or three minutes at 2X speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY&list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6irNK7kbZt-NY0O&index=18&t=167s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY&list=PL1zDCgJzZU...

stale2002 5y ago

> but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Thats an interesting prediction. So you are claiming that the judge in the Apple vs Epic case will not rule against Apple, in any way, on any of its behavior. That is a strong claim for you to be making. And since you have made this prediction, I will be sure to come back to your comments in a couple months. Because I am pretty sure that the judge will rule against Apple on at least some issues. Probably not the whole thing. But there will be some things that Apple is doing, which will be ruled illegal. The real question is, if this happens, will you back off on your extordinarily strong claim, that absolutely nothing that Apple was doing, will be deemed illegal by the judge? Will you admit that maybe you didn't think this all through?

simondotau 5y ago
I never made such claim. It is not inconsistent for something to be legal today and then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. It may become illegal in future. My prediction of the outcome is, I think, a coin flip between the Judge ruling entirely in Apple's favour, or a ruling that is mostly in Apple's favour but requires a minor relaxation of certain rules around messaging inside apps about alternative methods of payment. (However even in the event of the latter, this would not represent any impediment to Apple requiring a percentage license fee when payment occurs through an alternative method. In which case it would be moot.) For anyone following the trial directly—not just consuming other people's interpretations—it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way, slicing the thinnest possible piece for Epic. It all hinges upon what the Judge determines to be the relevant market, and what is considered an acceptable substitute under the Sherman act. Somewhat ironically, Epic is a terrible plaintiff in this respect since their games are available on many platforms.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. No actually. It would mean that it was already illegal. Thats why the judge would rule it that way. Judges interpret the law. So yes, if the judge rules this way, then this means that you were wrong to claim that Apple's actions were not illegal. And I look forward to coming back to this post when this happens, so that I can show you the explanation of why the actions were illegal on some fronts. > Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Well if the judge says otherwise, on some fronts, we will be able to look back on this post, and re-evaluate then, won't we? > become illegal in future. No, becoming illegal would be if a legislator changed the law. Instead, this case is about interpreting existing law. So if the judge rules this way, then it means that Apple's actions were illegal. They did not become illegal. They were always illegal. But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then. If the judge disagrees with them, and she says that the actions were illegal, they have already made up an excuse as for why the judge is wrong. Personally, I trust the opinion of the legal system. And that means that if the judge rules that some of the actions were always illegal, then that means that the judge is probably right, and you were wrong. > it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, and you take back your previous statement. Got it. Glad you agree that the judge will likely rule that some of Apple's actions were always illegal.

ece 5y ago

> law is established to disallow walled gardens of technology platforms Like I said, this is already disallowed under the Sherman act, and regulation will make it explicit. If an OS maker had sued Apple for tying a device to the OS, it would be illegal under the Sherman act too. No argument on Apple's tools, there are other tools available. I'm kind of taken aback by your misrepresentation of the open markets institute links I posted. You are being disengenuous when you say there's no such brief.

simondotau 5y ago
> I'm kind of taken aback Wow, did you seriously paste a link without reading it? Open Markets Institute did not file an amicus brief in Epic vs Apple. What you linked to is an amicus brief in the matter of Shah vs VHS San Antonio, a substantially different case which pre-dates the Epic lawsuit. Seriously, click on your own link. OMI did release two paragraphs about Epic vs Apple in the form of a press release. Did you think that was an amicus brief? I'm starting to think that maybe you don't know what an amicus brief is. > this is already disallowed under the Sherman act No, it isn't. You do know that the Sherman act doesn't make it illegal to operate a monopoly, right? > If an OS maker had sued Apple for tying a device to the OS, it would be illegal under the Sherman act too. You've just demonstrated that you don't understand what "tying" is in the context of antitrust.
- ece 5y ago
  I did wrongly assume the brief you mention (Shah vs VHS San Antonio) was submitted in the Epic case but it wasn't. I did skim it and found it relevant on the subject of tying. All I can say is it's a bit confusing, linking to said brief (on August 3), from their statement on the Epic case: https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games-antitrust-suit-against-apple-reveals-again-the-harms-of-tying https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/publications/epic-games... If you've followed the case, it's clear what anti-competitive harms Epic is alleging from the iOS app distribution market.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    So when I asked you for reading material that might convince me of your side of the argument, to "get out of [my] bubble", the best you could come up with was a tangentially relevant amicus brief that you hadn't even read, and didn't even know to which case it was submitted? You seriously don't have anything more substantive than that? I have listened to hours upon hours of the actual court proceedings in Epic vs Apple. Have you listened to even a single minute of it? I found Epic's case to be muddled and oftentimes contradictory. Most of their ambitious claims fell quite flat when tested in court. It certainly isn't helped with Tim Sweeney making some fairly ridiculous claims on Twitter, e.g. that Apple's commission should be more like credit card rates. Fairly ridiculous when Epic run the own store, which they admitted isn't yet profitable at a 12.5% commission. And I'm really confused why they couldn't make money on 12.5% since the Epic Games Store is barely more than a shopping cart and game downloader. Hoeg Law's final video includes a contextual refresher on the Sherman act. It's really worth listening to. Just six minutes, or three minutes at 2X speed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY&list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-TrSXpg6irNK7kbZt-NY0O&index=18&t=167s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY&list=PL1zDCgJzZU...