6 ms·

100% correct. I was involved in the Netscape Microsoft anti trust case and this is specifically the finding that led to their loss (way too late for us)

hedora 3y ago
The jury found that Google has a monopoly on the Android platform. That would extend to Apple and iOS, but I’ll be shocked if that finding is turned into a legal precedent that is upheld on appeal. For one thing, the jury is probably more technically savvy than the judges that will ultimately decide this case.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Monopolies are not illegal. It’s leveraging the monopoly to exert force on adjacent markets that is. In the case here googles foul play is making side deals for preferential treatment against other app stores given their control over the handset operating system. Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. This isn’t true for Google. Maybe for you and I this is splitting hairs, but splitting hairs is 99% of the law.
  - onli 3y ago
    According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... it does not have to be about adjacent markets. Maintaining a monopoly alone can be illegal, depending on the means. Blocking all other means of distributing apps in a reasonable way absolutely should have been enough to get Apple sanctioned. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code is allowed. This is stupid. But sure, jury trial. And also US judges in this area are especially broken, with their warped understanding of when a monopoly is harmful. --- Of course the other part of this is stupid as well. It should be illegal to have a monopoly, and it's the job of the government to break monopolies to enable competition. The US has it completely backwards here, and this is a big reason why that country is failing in key areas of economic development and infrastructure.
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "hipster antitrust". America's failings in economic development and infrastructure are not strictly caused by monopolization of the economy. South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. The problem with America is that we have a government that doesn't like to spend money, plus a group of illiberal, antidemocratic NIMBYs who make budgeting impossible by jacking up the cost of projects after they've already been estimated and committed to. Since I already shat on the Libertarian Party, let me shit on the Democratic Party next. California and New York have legal climates that are unusually hospitable to NIMBYism. They figured out how to weaponize environmental review laws, to the point where actual reports about environmental infrastructure necessary for mitigating or surviving climate change say that we can't build the infrastructure because it'll get tied down in NIMBY red tape. In California this manifests as delays, cancellations, and massive wind farms in Wyoming; in New York it's cost overruns as bribes are paid to whoever can look the other way to get things passed through. Either way we can't build shit in our most populated states. If there's a root cause for all of this, it's "vetocracy". In a democracy, when a decision is made, the people on the losing end of this decision agree to lose. However, since at least the 1970s, there has been several parallel movements to roll back decisions already made and form new mechanisms to prevent new decisions from being implemented. Antitrust was a rollback, NIMBYism was a new mechanism, but in either case, we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. [0] The Korean for Zaibatsu[1] [1] The Japanese for Chaebol[0]
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        Just to defend the libertarians briefly, no legal bullying tactics means trusts have a significantly harder time forming and maintaining their monopolies.
        3y ago
  - brandensilva 3y ago
    Just a slight clarification. The first Apple iPhone did not have an app store.
    - meepmorp 3y ago
      I think what they meant could be rephrased as, "for as long as there's been an App Store, it's been part of the OS. "
      - oarsinsync 3y ago
        Which I believe is also false. The jailbroken appstores predate the apple appstore.
      - kohlerm 3y ago
        What does thad mean "part of the OS"? It is not built into the kernel, and is therefore no part of the OS. I do not see why the same would not apply to Apple. But maybe the US legal system is just totally broken ...
        meepmorp 3y ago
        There's plenty of parts of an OS that aren't the kernel.
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        You are playing semantics - "He is not a slave, he is an endantured servant, nothing wrong here"
        meepmorp 3y ago
        I'm rephrasing another person's statement to clarify what (I believe) they meant. Separately, that's kind of a gross choice of comparisons.
    - godzillabrennus 3y ago
      It was added to the original iPhone with iPhone OS 2.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. "Apple doesn't offer an App Store market" is just assuming the conclusion. Nobody expects you to get competing app stores from Apple -- you get them from Apple's competitors. What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores.
    - batty_alex 3y ago
      > What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores. This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem
      - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        > This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront In that case, someone else owns the storefront. I own my phone, not Apple. If Apple would like to claim that I merely lease my phone, they need to update all their marketing so it isn't misleading. They should also be on the hook for repairs (without AppleCare), and all the other responsibilities that typically accompany a leased product.
      - diffeomorphism 3y ago
        Obviously not equivalent.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront Your phone isn't Apple's storefront. Their storefront is. Prohibiting their customers from patronizing any other store is clearly anti-competitive. > It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem It's not legal just because you agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem. "A closed ecosystem" is inherently anti-competitive and should be illegal.
- MBCook 3y ago
  But it wouldn’t because I don’t think that’s what it means. They appear to have ruled that Google has a monopoly because they’ve been squashing everyone else who should have been able to make an App Store by Google’s policies. Apple isn’t squashing anyone, they just don’t allow it in the first place. So I don’t think this would apply to Apple because of the line of reasoning. I know most people on hacker news think Apple should be forced to allow alternate app stores, but I don’t think this ruling can be used for that. It appears you would need something else.
  - frumper 3y ago
    Apple actively squashes attempts to jailbreak the phone which allows for additional app stores. The fact they aren’t mainstream alternatives is because Apple takes actions to stop the competition.

hedora 3y ago

The jury found that Google has a monopoly on the Android platform. That would extend to Apple and iOS, but I’ll be shocked if that finding is turned into a legal precedent that is upheld on appeal. For one thing, the jury is probably more technically savvy than the judges that will ultimately decide this case.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Monopolies are not illegal. It’s leveraging the monopoly to exert force on adjacent markets that is. In the case here googles foul play is making side deals for preferential treatment against other app stores given their control over the handset operating system. Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. This isn’t true for Google. Maybe for you and I this is splitting hairs, but splitting hairs is 99% of the law.
- onli 3y ago
  According to https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-1 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... it does not have to be about adjacent markets. Maintaining a monopoly alone can be illegal, depending on the means. Blocking all other means of distributing apps in a reasonable way absolutely should have been enough to get Apple sanctioned. Blocking alternatives with economic incentives is now forbidden, but blocking the access using code is allowed. This is stupid. But sure, jury trial. And also US judges in this area are especially broken, with their warped understanding of when a monopoly is harmful. --- Of course the other part of this is stupid as well. It should be illegal to have a monopoly, and it's the job of the government to break monopolies to enable competition. The US has it completely backwards here, and this is a big reason why that country is failing in key areas of economic development and infrastructure.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "hipster antitrust". America's failings in economic development and infrastructure are not strictly caused by monopolization of the economy. South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. The problem with America is that we have a government that doesn't like to spend money, plus a group of illiberal, antidemocratic NIMBYs who make budgeting impossible by jacking up the cost of projects after they've already been estimated and committed to. Since I already shat on the Libertarian Party, let me shit on the Democratic Party next. California and New York have legal climates that are unusually hospitable to NIMBYism. They figured out how to weaponize environmental review laws, to the point where actual reports about environmental infrastructure necessary for mitigating or surviving climate change say that we can't build the infrastructure because it'll get tied down in NIMBY red tape. In California this manifests as delays, cancellations, and massive wind farms in Wyoming; in New York it's cost overruns as bribes are paid to whoever can look the other way to get things passed through. Either way we can't build shit in our most populated states. If there's a root cause for all of this, it's "vetocracy". In a democracy, when a decision is made, the people on the losing end of this decision agree to lose. However, since at least the 1970s, there has been several parallel movements to roll back decisions already made and form new mechanisms to prevent new decisions from being implemented. Antitrust was a rollback, NIMBYism was a new mechanism, but in either case, we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. [0] The Korean for Zaibatsu[1] [1] The Japanese for Chaebol[0]
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      Just to defend the libertarians briefly, no legal bullying tactics means trusts have a significantly harder time forming and maintaining their monopolies.
      - 3y ago
- brandensilva 3y ago
  Just a slight clarification. The first Apple iPhone did not have an app store.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    I think what they meant could be rephrased as, "for as long as there's been an App Store, it's been part of the OS. "
    - oarsinsync 3y ago
      Which I believe is also false. The jailbroken appstores predate the apple appstore.
    - kohlerm 3y ago
      What does thad mean "part of the OS"? It is not built into the kernel, and is therefore no part of the OS. I do not see why the same would not apply to Apple. But maybe the US legal system is just totally broken ...
      - meepmorp 3y ago
        There's plenty of parts of an OS that aren't the kernel.
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      You are playing semantics - "He is not a slave, he is an endantured servant, nothing wrong here"
      - meepmorp 3y ago
        I'm rephrasing another person's statement to clarify what (I believe) they meant. Separately, that's kind of a gross choice of comparisons.
  - godzillabrennus 3y ago
    It was added to the original iPhone with iPhone OS 2.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Apple doesn’t offer an App Store market and never has nor ever represented otherwise, the app store is and always has been part of the operating system. "Apple doesn't offer an App Store market" is just assuming the conclusion. Nobody expects you to get competing app stores from Apple -- you get them from Apple's competitors. What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores.
  - batty_alex 3y ago
    > What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores. This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem
    - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
      > This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront In that case, someone else owns the storefront. I own my phone, not Apple. If Apple would like to claim that I merely lease my phone, they need to update all their marketing so it isn't misleading. They should also be on the hook for repairs (without AppleCare), and all the other responsibilities that typically accompany a leased product.
    - diffeomorphism 3y ago
      Obviously not equivalent.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront Your phone isn't Apple's storefront. Their storefront is. Prohibiting their customers from patronizing any other store is clearly anti-competitive. > It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem It's not legal just because you agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem. "A closed ecosystem" is inherently anti-competitive and should be illegal.
MBCook 3y ago
But it wouldn’t because I don’t think that’s what it means. They appear to have ruled that Google has a monopoly because they’ve been squashing everyone else who should have been able to make an App Store by Google’s policies. Apple isn’t squashing anyone, they just don’t allow it in the first place. So I don’t think this would apply to Apple because of the line of reasoning. I know most people on hacker news think Apple should be forced to allow alternate app stores, but I don’t think this ruling can be used for that. It appears you would need something else.
- frumper 3y ago
  Apple actively squashes attempts to jailbreak the phone which allows for additional app stores. The fact they aren’t mainstream alternatives is because Apple takes actions to stop the competition.