6 ms·

I picked that example because Apple has already lost in that scenario before. :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia

by taeric 3y ago

I picked that example because Apple has already lost in that scenario before. :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc. There is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L..., so Apple hasn't exactly been free of antitrust legislation in the past...

Clent 3y ago
That's an irrelevant scenario because it involves multiple companies working in concert. This is just Apple. I don't understand how this is any different than Sony or Nintendo deciding the terms to release games on their hardware. Is it because they charge for dev-kits and Apple doesn't. Are we certain it's in the public's interest to make development for Apple platforms more restrictive?
- taeric 3y ago
  It is only relevant as evidence that antitrust != monopoly laws. They include monopoly laws, of course; but there is more to them than that. This isn't a decided case, such that I don't know what you are asking? Do we have evidence that Sony/Nintendo won't let you be a paying developer? More, do we have evidence that they would let you, but then after possibly benefiting from your efforts, kick you off their platform with no recourse? I confess I would not be too surprised if we do have some of that evidence, but I haven't seen it. We have seen plenty of shady crap from those companies, but there are material other differences that make them hard to compare.
scarface_74 3y ago
Yes because Apple was trying to give publishers control over their own prices as opposed to the company that actually had a monopoly - Amazon
- taeric 3y ago
  This is incoherent? Apple was the one that was found guilty under antitrust laws there, not Amazon.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    That’s just the point. The ruling was incoherent. Amazon was deciding the prices of ebooks and taking a loss selling them below what the publishers were selling them to Amazon. This was hurting the publishers physical books sells. The publishers wanted to control their own prices. But one punisher couldn’t pull their books from Amazon unless they all did. Apple was working as a go between for all of the publishers and wanted to give the publishers the right to set their own prices and Apple would take a cut. This is where the case came in.
    - taeric 3y ago
      You are begging a ton of questions there. For one, there was no evidence that physical book sales were impacted by lower priced ebooks. For two, Amazon doesn't even have a monopoly on ebooks, much less books. Their share is almost certainly comparable to the marketshare we are discussing here, amusingly. Further, though, you are literally arguing against the laws here. They were not found guilty of being a monopoly. They were found guilty of antitrust violations that included price manipulation in the one case, and wage manipulation in the other.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        How could physical book sales not be impacted when Amazon was selling ebooks for $9.99 when they weee buying the right to sell them from the publisher for $14.99? It’s a classic case of price dumping. Apple was found guilty of price manipulation because they wanted to make a deal with the publishers to allow the publishers to set their own pricing instead of Amazon price dumping.
        taeric 3y ago
        I don't really care to defend Amazon in this, but your argument here is pretty weak. Which is why nobody has really accused Amazon of this in court. Note that antitrust lawsuits have been brought against them, but from what I can find, they were dismissed. https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-dismissal-antitrust-lawsuits-over-book-pricing-2022-09-29/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-di... This is all a side discussion, which I confess is fun; but it seems you agree that Apple has been guilty of antitrust violations in the past, without necessarily having had a monopoly. And... that is the entirety of my point that started this branch. :D
coldtea 3y ago
>I picked that example because Apple has already lost in that scenario before. It has, but it's not really relevant to the case, nor is the employee thing. Nor I find the court decision particularly correct in that case anyway. Amazon had for over a decade (and still) applies 10000-pound coercion pressure upon the publishers from big monopoly position, yet Apple got the fines because the publishers decided to sell where they'd be allowed a higher selling price instead of the one forced upon them by Amazon's wieght.
- taeric 3y ago
  I was pointing out that your claim of monopoly is irrelevant for the question, though. You can totally be found guilty of antitrust without having or abusing a monopoly. As evidenced by Apple on multiple occasions. If you are arguing that those decisions were wrong, good luck with that. They lost handily in both of the cited cases I picked. Again, I'm only stating that antitrust is not completely defined by monopoly. That is just the one people think they understand the most.

by taeric 3y ago

Clent 3y ago

That's an irrelevant scenario because it involves multiple companies working in concert. This is just Apple. I don't understand how this is any different than Sony or Nintendo deciding the terms to release games on their hardware. Is it because they charge for dev-kits and Apple doesn't. Are we certain it's in the public's interest to make development for Apple platforms more restrictive?

taeric 3y ago
It is only relevant as evidence that antitrust != monopoly laws. They include monopoly laws, of course; but there is more to them than that. This isn't a decided case, such that I don't know what you are asking? Do we have evidence that Sony/Nintendo won't let you be a paying developer? More, do we have evidence that they would let you, but then after possibly benefiting from your efforts, kick you off their platform with no recourse? I confess I would not be too surprised if we do have some of that evidence, but I haven't seen it. We have seen plenty of shady crap from those companies, but there are material other differences that make them hard to compare.

scarface_74 3y ago

Yes because Apple was trying to give publishers control over their own prices as opposed to the company that actually had a monopoly - Amazon

taeric 3y ago
This is incoherent? Apple was the one that was found guilty under antitrust laws there, not Amazon.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  That’s just the point. The ruling was incoherent. Amazon was deciding the prices of ebooks and taking a loss selling them below what the publishers were selling them to Amazon. This was hurting the publishers physical books sells. The publishers wanted to control their own prices. But one punisher couldn’t pull their books from Amazon unless they all did. Apple was working as a go between for all of the publishers and wanted to give the publishers the right to set their own prices and Apple would take a cut. This is where the case came in.
  - taeric 3y ago
    You are begging a ton of questions there. For one, there was no evidence that physical book sales were impacted by lower priced ebooks. For two, Amazon doesn't even have a monopoly on ebooks, much less books. Their share is almost certainly comparable to the marketshare we are discussing here, amusingly. Further, though, you are literally arguing against the laws here. They were not found guilty of being a monopoly. They were found guilty of antitrust violations that included price manipulation in the one case, and wage manipulation in the other.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      How could physical book sales not be impacted when Amazon was selling ebooks for $9.99 when they weee buying the right to sell them from the publisher for $14.99? It’s a classic case of price dumping. Apple was found guilty of price manipulation because they wanted to make a deal with the publishers to allow the publishers to set their own pricing instead of Amazon price dumping.
      - taeric 3y ago
        I don't really care to defend Amazon in this, but your argument here is pretty weak. Which is why nobody has really accused Amazon of this in court. Note that antitrust lawsuits have been brought against them, but from what I can find, they were dismissed. https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-dismissal-antitrust-lawsuits-over-book-pricing-2022-09-29/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazon-major-publishers-win-di... This is all a side discussion, which I confess is fun; but it seems you agree that Apple has been guilty of antitrust violations in the past, without necessarily having had a monopoly. And... that is the entirety of my point that started this branch. :D

coldtea 3y ago

>I picked that example because Apple has already lost in that scenario before. It has, but it's not really relevant to the case, nor is the employee thing. Nor I find the court decision particularly correct in that case anyway. Amazon had for over a decade (and still) applies 10000-pound coercion pressure upon the publishers from big monopoly position, yet Apple got the fines because the publishers decided to sell where they'd be allowed a higher selling price instead of the one forced upon them by Amazon's wieght.

taeric 3y ago
I was pointing out that your claim of monopoly is irrelevant for the question, though. You can totally be found guilty of antitrust without having or abusing a monopoly. As evidenced by Apple on multiple occasions. If you are arguing that those decisions were wrong, good luck with that. They lost handily in both of the cited cases I picked. Again, I'm only stating that antitrust is not completely defined by monopoly. That is just the one people think they understand the most.