8 ms·

> “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the tr

> “The court cannot ultimately conclude that apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws,” she writes in the ruling. “Nonetheless, the trial did show that apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws.” It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour. I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly.

ChrisLomont 5y ago
It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
  no, only HN seems stuck on arguments like this
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. The argument is not "bigger". It is exactly the same. If we're not a monopoly (Apple), how can we be anti-competitive?
  - dannyw 5y ago
    There are laws against anticompetitive behaviour in California. Those apply to all companies, irrespective of monopoly status.
    - Supermancho 5y ago
      Ok? That doesnt explain what the phrase : > (the judgement) then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. is supposed to mean by "bigger argument".
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      Yes, those laws in California are not uniform among states. If Apple is not a monopoly and violating Federal Law, then on appeal, to higher than state laws, the case is more likely to reversed. Since other states do not have the same laws of California, the Supreme Court will likely apply Federal Law, not California law, on appeal. Epic is headquartered in NC, after all. Thus this will fall under interstate commerce clauses, and California law only applies to transactions in California.
bialpio 5y ago
> I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly. Why would it? The court basically dodged the question, so we still don't have an answer provided by the court system. Until that happens, we can discuss it to death if we want! Edit: excerpt from the ruling is: "Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. (...) The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  What does an answer actually look like?
  - bialpio 5y ago
    I'd expect one of the 2 phrasings to be present: "the Court concludes that Apple is a monopolist under federal / state antitrust laws" "the Court concludes that Apple is not a monopolist under neither federal nor state antitrust laws" Instead, the court went with the third, which to me means "we have not ruled on whether Apple is a monopolist or not, lawsuits welcome". Is that not the right way to look at it?
    - dannyw 5y ago
      The court said Epic failed to prove it in the relevant market to this case (digital mobile gaming). Leaves the door open for Spotify to sue.
- radley 5y ago
  The injunction clearly states Apple is anti-competitive, but not a monopoly.
  - bialpio 5y ago
    Hmm. I'm reading "the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws" as "we cannot decide on this matter". Is this not the right interpretation?
kodah 5y ago
From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change, imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly. I'm also interested in discussing conglomerates and whether they are good or bad, and how to control them similar to monopolies, but that discourse can't be had until we can agree on something like the definition of a monopoly.
- simonh 5y ago
  How would you like the definition of a monopoly to change? Or to avoid sniping over details if you're not sure of a definition text, how would you like it to change and to what objective?
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Personally? I think we should get away from "monopoly" and move towards "excessively large market entity." The problems now have more to do with market capitalization / revenue than they do with physical control. Apple or Google aren't trying to buy all the railroad tracks between Cincinnati and Kansas City (app stores aside). They're trying to assemble a company that owns all the disparate but critical pieces in an ecosystem, then leverage those into extracting higher than free market rents. Consequently, remedies shouldn't be the same as for monopolies (read: breaking up companies). They should instead of targeted on (1) classifying corporations by their size & (2) placing limits on their actions, in places where that size provides its own monopolistic-esque advantage. Afaict, these should take the form of prohibiting acquisitions of competitors (Facebook shouldn't be able to buy Instagram or WhatsApp, but Instagram and WhatsApp should have been allowed to buy each other / merge) and stricter limits on market entry (FAANGM or SoftBank deciding they want to throw stupid money into a hole to poison the well and capture market share).
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      I'd rather stay away from focusing on the size of the org itself, and moreso on the "markets" that they create. When a platform or market is created by an entity, and that platform reaches a certain scale, they must allow free competition within that market. Here's an extreme example. Say somewhere down the line Facebook invents some metaverse or VR world. This becomes the primary form of interaction between people... 99% of interactions take place in this virtual world. It's clear the scale and extent to which this platform impacts people's lives is substantial. So Facebook logically would have to allow other sellers to enter this virtual world and compete to drive prices towards a free market equilibrium. Past monopoly legislation has focused on competition outside the walls, product vs product. But nowadays the walled gardens are getting big enough to the point that these companies have large control over our lives. Maybe that example just muddies things, but the important thing in my mind is to identify "private markets" and enforce that competition be allowed.
echelon 5y ago
It's a new game, and we need new definitions. Famgopolies [1] behave different than monopolies. But they're every bit, if not more, dangerous. They use their incredible market power and cash piles to enter new markets with ease and put price pressure on the incumbents. It's hard to compete with free. Then all the other famgopolies enter the space too, and it's just a famgopoly watering hole. Their objective: capturing attention and keeping their users on their platforms longer. They use their platform bubbles to capture a large group of users that will never leave their services. Like Apple users. They're all in a bubble, and if you want access, you have to pay a steep tax and jump to the beat of the their whims. And this isn't a new kind of monopoly? It's a monopolization in a new sense: they wrap their shroud over individuals and companies and keep them attached at the hip. Switching costs become incredible. Apple, Google, and Amazon are turning us into serfs. They have a quasi republic going on that they tax and control. You can't start new businesses. You can't escape. If they target your small market, you're screwed. The DOJ needs to break these companies up into twenty or so smaller ones that don't form a cobweb of entrapment. Apple/Google/etc fans and shareholders will disagree, but these companies are hurting our industry and soaking up all the innovation. [1] FAAMG companies with supremely anticompetitive behavior
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  I don't think we need a new word for this. What you've described is a cartel [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel]. To the extent that they restrain trade, prohibit competition, or artificially increase costs on consumers, cartels are already illegal in the US.
  - echelon 5y ago
    Is "cartel" fitting? These companies aren't always associated. (Though recent leaks do seem to indicate behind-doors conversations are taking place.) Some of the prevailing themes: - These companies are after attention across any vertical a person may touch - These companies build platforms that scope creep into other platforms and verticals. They connect and entrench them. - They make it impossible to access consumers without them, and then they tax the entry points - They make switching costs high
mbell 5y ago
That quote is a bit of a cherry pick resulting a wide interpretation that isn't supported. The actual ruling is something more like "Epic failed to prove that Apple is a monopoly in the market the judge decided is the relevant market: digital mobile gaming transactions". Here are the relevant sections of the ruling: > The Court disagrees with both parties’ definition of the relevant market. > Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games’ motive in bringing this action. Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games’ next target and it views Apple as an impediment. > Further, the evidence demonstrates that most App Store revenue is generated by mobile gaming apps, not all apps. Thus, defining the market to focus on gaming apps is appropriate. Generally speaking, on a revenue basis, gaming apps account for approximately 70% of all App Store revenues. This 70% of revenue is generated by less than 10% of all App Store consumers. These gaming-app consumers are primarily making in-app purchases which is the focus of Epic Games’ claims. By contrast, over 80% of all consumer accounts generate virtually no revenue, as 80% of all apps on the App Store are free. > Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrustconduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist. Case Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist. > Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice. When coupled with Apple’s incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly. Unlikely. While there may now be a legal decision in place it will still be argued whether or not it was the correct one.
ecf 5y ago
> It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they alone created? If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the company that allows the whole ecosystem to exist. If they don’t like it, they can go and create their own phone hardware and app ecosystem. Maybe I’m just naive.
- ProAm 5y ago
  Who's phone is it?
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Apple goes beyond not facilitating other businesses; they actively ban other app stores (because the only legit way to get an app store on an iPhone is to install it from their app store).
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Apple is in several markets in the same time and using its position in one to control the competition in another. There are limits to what you can do in a vertically integrated business stack, especially when you invite third parties to participate in pieces of that stack. As a consumer, I can't have a phone for every software vendor I want to purchase from, that's obviously ridiculous. If Apple wants to create a marketplace, it has to allow certain things to happen in that marketplace. If the App Store was an entirely separate business not tied to hardware, the restrictions would be significantly less.
- boolemancer 5y ago
  Because those rules are anti-competitive. I don't think anyone is saying that they need to provide support for third-party payment processors themselves, but their rules can't restrict someone else from supporting them. I don't know why that would be controversial. Imagine a world where Google required a 30% cut of everything bought through Chrome. How is what Apple's doing any different from that?
DannyBee 5y ago
You are very confused. Courts don't make calls as to whether companies are monopolist in general. The judge doesn't even try to do that (though someone is trying to make it seem like they have). They make a call about whether a company has monopoly power in a specific market defined in a specific case. In this case, the court does not believe Apple is a monopolist in a specifically defined digital gaming market. That has no bearing or relevance on whether they are a monopolist in some other defined market (or even on a different day in the same market!)
hospadar 5y ago
I'm sure it won't put a stop to it, I love to read discussions about "Does company X engage in anti-competitive behavior and are they a big enough player that it's a problem". That seems to be a much more useful discussion (i.e. it gets at "do they need to be reigned in by We The People") than "are they a monopoly" which is just bickering over what words mean (with some shades of "if they _were_ a monopoly, then We The People should do something about it). At the end of the day, who cares if they are a monopoly or not - you don't have to be a monopoly to be in a position to do Bad Stuff to The Market.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  We should care if they are a monopoly, because if they're a monopoly, then they simply shouldn't be allowed to exist. Even if they aren't a monopoly, they shouldn't be allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
  - blackoil 5y ago
    > if they're a monopoly, then they simply shouldn't be allowed to exist. Market driven de-facto monopoly are allowed. If you own >90% search engine marketshare it is fine as you have earned it. If you abuse the marketshare to enter shopping, travel market it is monopoly-*abuse* and it should be blocked/fined.
    - smolder 5y ago
      Abuse would include if you were charging ridiculous amounts of money for your monopoly service, like Ma Bell did, right? What about deterring competition with portfolios full of braindead patents? Buying legislation that puts high barriers around the market? I think the separation between government and big business is a farce, today, and in combination they're way more oppressive than high priced telephone service was way back when.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  > "Does company X engage in anti-competitive behavior and are they a big enough player that it's a problem" Seems like that just makes "it's a problem" do all the work.
Andrex 5y ago
All it says to me is federal antitrust guidelines are outdated and California's are not. We need strong federal antitrust enforcement. This only worked because Apple is based in California, which has stricter rules.
SkyBelow 5y ago
>I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly. Are those threads arguing about a legal definition, because if not then this would have little impact on them. Even if they are arguing form a legal perspective, it would have to be within the same legal system as this court and thus could be argued for other legal systems. And even then one can argue the judge is wrong, look at how many judges end up being wrong based on appeal results. Technically you can't be sure which judge is actually wrong, you know which one is in the court that overrules the other, but you can still point out that the disagreement means one of them is wrong even if you can't say definitely which one is.
smarx007 5y ago
Well, if we are taking quotes out of a serious 185-page document, we are bound to lose some context. How about this counter-quote: "The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."

ChrisLomont 5y ago

It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.

newaccount2021 5y ago
no, only HN seems stuck on arguments like this
Supermancho 5y ago
> It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. The argument is not "bigger". It is exactly the same. If we're not a monopoly (Apple), how can we be anti-competitive?
- dannyw 5y ago
  There are laws against anticompetitive behaviour in California. Those apply to all companies, irrespective of monopoly status.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    Ok? That doesnt explain what the phrase : > (the judgement) then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. is supposed to mean by "bigger argument".
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    Yes, those laws in California are not uniform among states. If Apple is not a monopoly and violating Federal Law, then on appeal, to higher than state laws, the case is more likely to reversed. Since other states do not have the same laws of California, the Supreme Court will likely apply Federal Law, not California law, on appeal. Epic is headquartered in NC, after all. Thus this will fall under interstate commerce clauses, and California law only applies to transactions in California.

bialpio 5y ago

> I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly. Why would it? The court basically dodged the question, so we still don't have an answer provided by the court system. Until that happens, we can discuss it to death if we want! Edit: excerpt from the ruling is: "Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. (...) The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."

madeofpalk 5y ago
What does an answer actually look like?
- bialpio 5y ago
  I'd expect one of the 2 phrasings to be present: "the Court concludes that Apple is a monopolist under federal / state antitrust laws" "the Court concludes that Apple is not a monopolist under neither federal nor state antitrust laws" Instead, the court went with the third, which to me means "we have not ruled on whether Apple is a monopolist or not, lawsuits welcome". Is that not the right way to look at it?
  - dannyw 5y ago
    The court said Epic failed to prove it in the relevant market to this case (digital mobile gaming). Leaves the door open for Spotify to sue.
radley 5y ago
The injunction clearly states Apple is anti-competitive, but not a monopoly.
- bialpio 5y ago
  Hmm. I'm reading "the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws" as "we cannot decide on this matter". Is this not the right interpretation?

kodah 5y ago

From my perspective folks are arguing two things: The current definition of a monopoly. Whether the current definition of a monopoly needs to change. If you are mixing the two arguments discourse can go nowhere because you're substantively discussing cause and effect. The current definition of a monopoly needs to change, imo, then we can talk about whether Apple is a monopoly. I'm also interested in discussing conglomerates and whether they are good or bad, and how to control them similar to monopolies, but that discourse can't be had until we can agree on something like the definition of a monopoly.

simonh 5y ago
How would you like the definition of a monopoly to change? Or to avoid sniping over details if you're not sure of a definition text, how would you like it to change and to what objective?
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Personally? I think we should get away from "monopoly" and move towards "excessively large market entity." The problems now have more to do with market capitalization / revenue than they do with physical control. Apple or Google aren't trying to buy all the railroad tracks between Cincinnati and Kansas City (app stores aside). They're trying to assemble a company that owns all the disparate but critical pieces in an ecosystem, then leverage those into extracting higher than free market rents. Consequently, remedies shouldn't be the same as for monopolies (read: breaking up companies). They should instead of targeted on (1) classifying corporations by their size & (2) placing limits on their actions, in places where that size provides its own monopolistic-esque advantage. Afaict, these should take the form of prohibiting acquisitions of competitors (Facebook shouldn't be able to buy Instagram or WhatsApp, but Instagram and WhatsApp should have been allowed to buy each other / merge) and stricter limits on market entry (FAANGM or SoftBank deciding they want to throw stupid money into a hole to poison the well and capture market share).
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    I'd rather stay away from focusing on the size of the org itself, and moreso on the "markets" that they create. When a platform or market is created by an entity, and that platform reaches a certain scale, they must allow free competition within that market. Here's an extreme example. Say somewhere down the line Facebook invents some metaverse or VR world. This becomes the primary form of interaction between people... 99% of interactions take place in this virtual world. It's clear the scale and extent to which this platform impacts people's lives is substantial. So Facebook logically would have to allow other sellers to enter this virtual world and compete to drive prices towards a free market equilibrium. Past monopoly legislation has focused on competition outside the walls, product vs product. But nowadays the walled gardens are getting big enough to the point that these companies have large control over our lives. Maybe that example just muddies things, but the important thing in my mind is to identify "private markets" and enforce that competition be allowed.

echelon 5y ago

It's a new game, and we need new definitions. Famgopolies [1] behave different than monopolies. But they're every bit, if not more, dangerous. They use their incredible market power and cash piles to enter new markets with ease and put price pressure on the incumbents. It's hard to compete with free. Then all the other famgopolies enter the space too, and it's just a famgopoly watering hole. Their objective: capturing attention and keeping their users on their platforms longer. They use their platform bubbles to capture a large group of users that will never leave their services. Like Apple users. They're all in a bubble, and if you want access, you have to pay a steep tax and jump to the beat of the their whims. And this isn't a new kind of monopoly? It's a monopolization in a new sense: they wrap their shroud over individuals and companies and keep them attached at the hip. Switching costs become incredible. Apple, Google, and Amazon are turning us into serfs. They have a quasi republic going on that they tax and control. You can't start new businesses. You can't escape. If they target your small market, you're screwed. The DOJ needs to break these companies up into twenty or so smaller ones that don't form a cobweb of entrapment. Apple/Google/etc fans and shareholders will disagree, but these companies are hurting our industry and soaking up all the innovation. [1] FAAMG companies with supremely anticompetitive behavior

shadowgovt 5y ago
I don't think we need a new word for this. What you've described is a cartel [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel]. To the extent that they restrain trade, prohibit competition, or artificially increase costs on consumers, cartels are already illegal in the US.
- echelon 5y ago
  Is "cartel" fitting? These companies aren't always associated. (Though recent leaks do seem to indicate behind-doors conversations are taking place.) Some of the prevailing themes: - These companies are after attention across any vertical a person may touch - These companies build platforms that scope creep into other platforms and verticals. They connect and entrench them. - They make it impossible to access consumers without them, and then they tax the entry points - They make switching costs high

mbell 5y ago

That quote is a bit of a cherry pick resulting a wide interpretation that isn't supported. The actual ruling is something more like "Epic failed to prove that Apple is a monopoly in the market the judge decided is the relevant market: digital mobile gaming transactions". Here are the relevant sections of the ruling: > The Court disagrees with both parties’ definition of the relevant market. > Ultimately, after evaluating the trial evidence, the Court finds that the relevant market here is digital mobile gaming transactions, not gaming generally and not Apple’s own internal operating systems related to the App Store. The mobile gaming market itself is a $100 billion industry. The size of this market explains Epic Games’ motive in bringing this action. Having penetrated all other video game markets, the mobile gaming market was Epic Games’ next target and it views Apple as an impediment. > Further, the evidence demonstrates that most App Store revenue is generated by mobile gaming apps, not all apps. Thus, defining the market to focus on gaming apps is appropriate. Generally speaking, on a revenue basis, gaming apps account for approximately 70% of all App Store revenues. This 70% of revenue is generated by less than 10% of all App Store consumers. These gaming-app consumers are primarily making in-app purchases which is the focus of Epic Games’ claims. By contrast, over 80% of all consumer accounts generate virtually no revenue, as 80% of all apps on the App Store are free. > Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrustconduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist. Case Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist. > Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California’s competition laws. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice. When coupled with Apple’s incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly. Unlikely. While there may now be a legal decision in place it will still be argued whether or not it was the correct one.

ecf 5y ago

> It's nice to see that you don't have to be a monopolist to be legally barred from anti-competitive behaviour Can someone ELI5 why Apple is considered to be anti-competitive for not dedicating resources to assisting another business in creating a competitor to a market for a platform they and they alone created? If Epic wants to have their game on a phone, it makes sense they abide by the rules enforced by the company that allows the whole ecosystem to exist. If they don’t like it, they can go and create their own phone hardware and app ecosystem. Maybe I’m just naive.

ProAm 5y ago
Who's phone is it?
shadowgovt 5y ago
Apple goes beyond not facilitating other businesses; they actively ban other app stores (because the only legit way to get an app store on an iPhone is to install it from their app store).
colechristensen 5y ago
Apple is in several markets in the same time and using its position in one to control the competition in another. There are limits to what you can do in a vertically integrated business stack, especially when you invite third parties to participate in pieces of that stack. As a consumer, I can't have a phone for every software vendor I want to purchase from, that's obviously ridiculous. If Apple wants to create a marketplace, it has to allow certain things to happen in that marketplace. If the App Store was an entirely separate business not tied to hardware, the restrictions would be significantly less.
boolemancer 5y ago
Because those rules are anti-competitive. I don't think anyone is saying that they need to provide support for third-party payment processors themselves, but their rules can't restrict someone else from supporting them. I don't know why that would be controversial. Imagine a world where Google required a 30% cut of everything bought through Chrome. How is what Apple's doing any different from that?

DannyBee 5y ago

You are very confused. Courts don't make calls as to whether companies are monopolist in general. The judge doesn't even try to do that (though someone is trying to make it seem like they have). They make a call about whether a company has monopoly power in a specific market defined in a specific case. In this case, the court does not believe Apple is a monopolist in a specifically defined digital gaming market. That has no bearing or relevance on whether they are a monopolist in some other defined market (or even on a different day in the same market!)

hospadar 5y ago

I'm sure it won't put a stop to it, I love to read discussions about "Does company X engage in anti-competitive behavior and are they a big enough player that it's a problem". That seems to be a much more useful discussion (i.e. it gets at "do they need to be reigned in by We The People") than "are they a monopoly" which is just bickering over what words mean (with some shades of "if they _were_ a monopoly, then We The People should do something about it). At the end of the day, who cares if they are a monopoly or not - you don't have to be a monopoly to be in a position to do Bad Stuff to The Market.

TheCoelacanth 5y ago
We should care if they are a monopoly, because if they're a monopoly, then they simply shouldn't be allowed to exist. Even if they aren't a monopoly, they shouldn't be allowed to engage in anti-competitive behavior.
- blackoil 5y ago
  > if they're a monopoly, then they simply shouldn't be allowed to exist. Market driven de-facto monopoly are allowed. If you own >90% search engine marketshare it is fine as you have earned it. If you abuse the marketshare to enter shopping, travel market it is monopoly-*abuse* and it should be blocked/fined.
  - smolder 5y ago
    Abuse would include if you were charging ridiculous amounts of money for your monopoly service, like Ma Bell did, right? What about deterring competition with portfolios full of braindead patents? Buying legislation that puts high barriers around the market? I think the separation between government and big business is a farce, today, and in combination they're way more oppressive than high priced telephone service was way back when.
tshaddox 5y ago
> "Does company X engage in anti-competitive behavior and are they a big enough player that it's a problem" Seems like that just makes "it's a problem" do all the work.

Andrex 5y ago

All it says to me is federal antitrust guidelines are outdated and California's are not. We need strong federal antitrust enforcement. This only worked because Apple is based in California, which has stricter rules.

SkyBelow 5y ago

>I hope this puts a permanent stop to all the thread on HN arguing one way or another whether Apple is a monopoly. Are those threads arguing about a legal definition, because if not then this would have little impact on them. Even if they are arguing form a legal perspective, it would have to be within the same legal system as this court and thus could be argued for other legal systems. And even then one can argue the judge is wrong, look at how many judges end up being wrong based on appeal results. Technically you can't be sure which judge is actually wrong, you know which one is in the court that overrules the other, but you can still point out that the disagreement means one of them is wrong even if you can't say definitely which one is.

smarx007 5y ago

Well, if we are taking quotes out of a serious 185-page document, we are bound to lose some context. How about this counter-quote: "The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."