3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoSo 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...
- ece 5y agoI'll leave the difference between "skim" and "read" be. I've read quite a bit of the documentation from court listener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc... I'll leave it here.