3 ms·

This is being overthought. Allow me to quote Justice Jackson from (an unrelated case, but still wise words) her concurrence in Twitter, Inc. vs Taamneh et al.:

by SllX 3y ago

This is being overthought. Allow me to quote Justice Jackson from (an unrelated case, but still wise words) her concurrence in Twitter, Inc. vs Taamneh et al.: “Other cases presenting different allegations and different records may lead to different conclusions.” I don’t think it’s anymore complicated than that. The cases were different, the records were different, so rather than pursuing the merits and demerits of our legal system and likening it to a die roll, go play spot the diff with the case records. EDIT: Sean Hollister’s article in The Verge link is by the way an excellent analysis of the differences. Only point 4 lists the Jury as being a direct factor, everything the Jury saw is something a Judge would have seen during a bench trial.

eviks 3y ago
My comment IS about Sean's article in the Verge link??? And no, it's not just 4 > a judge would have seen A judge would've had a different reaction, just like correctly mentioned in 4 in the article "While a judge might have well decided those deals aren’t out of the norm, the jury may have seen how the sausage is made for the very first time" The Jackson quote isn't relevant: the allegations are substantially the same, and Apple's case is much stronger because it's much more anti-competitive even without autodeleted chats, so the "surprise" from a different outcome is justified
- SllX 3y ago
  There are substantially different facts that are both public knowledge and in the record. The iPhone operating system has always been an integral part of the Apple developed iPhone product-line. Compare and contrast this with Android which was from the start billed as an open platform that carriers and OEMs could do with as they liked. However, there are two substantial business activities that Google has engaged in outside of developing and maintaining the AOSP and also maintaining their own line of Android software: 1) they contractually required OEMs to include all of a set of key apps they developed for use on Android, giving privileged positions to some of them and requiring that OEMs not fork Android in order to continue to have access to Google’s Play Services. 2) And here’s the money shot: when 3rd party developers such as Epic and according to Tim Sweeney in an interview that was also on The Verge, Activision, were developing their own App Stores, Google made the rounds paying them off to not do so. Epic received the offer, but didn’t take the deal. To go one step further, Google also made the rounds to game developers to keep them from listing in Epic’s store as well. Why does Android have a, as framed by the questionnaire the members of the Jury filled out and answered yes to this question on, a defined market area in and I quote “Android app distribution, worldwide excluding China” but the iPhone does not? Because that is how Google billed Android from the start: an open platform with an open software market. Conversely, Apple has never allowed a secondary app market to develop on iOS outside of the App Store and have taken pains to prevent this whereas separate app storefronts are a feature of the Android operating system but Google has actively worked to undermine their market viability. For what it’s worth, I do think Google should have won this one, but either Epic has epic lawyers, Google’s lawyers walked in thinking this was a Grenada or both. I don’t have a lot of respect for the position that antitrust law is even applicable anywhere within the phone hardware and software market in the US. Either way, this was a substantively different record and a different set of allegations leading to a different outcome. Oh and on this: > And no, it's not just 4 In substance it’s just 4. 5 and 6 are things the Judge would have also had as criteria to make a judgement on. What’s different about point 6 is that he could have kept his thoughts to himself rather than pointing this out to a Jury. In the end, whether it’s a Jury or Judge, you are relying on people to make a judgement call. Trying to predict the judgement call different people will make might be possible if you become an expert in that person, but even then they might surprise you. Like with any working class professionals—Doctors, Accountants, Consultants, PR Agents—you can take any two of them from the same profession, give them a set of facts and desirable outcomes and end up with two completely different opinions. Legal strategy does involve knowing your audience to some degree, but both legal teams went in knowing it was and preparing for a Jury trial. If Google had any disadvantages, it wasn’t solely from this being a Jury trial in a Jury pool they helped to select.
  - eviks 3y ago
    >Google billed Android from the start: an open platform with an open software market. Conversely, Apple has never allowed a secondary app market to develop on iOS outside of the App Store and have taken pains to prevent this whereas separate app storefronts are a feature of the Android operating system but Google has actively worked to undermine their market viability. So Apple has always been worse re. anticompetitive behavior, and even with all the shenanigans Android is a much more open platform. How does this help avoid the suprise that only a less worse player got punished? How does "always been bad" logic helps you transform it into "less bad"? The legal issue here is not "hypocrisy" where saying "open", but being "close" counts, but antitrust > For what it’s worth, I do think Google should have won this one, but either Epic has epic lawyers, Google’s lawyers walked in thinking this was a Grenada or both. Or neither, much more plausible that both groups were fine, see the article for a list of bettter reasons > whether it’s a Jury or Judge, you are relying on people to make a judgement call But those a very different people, as your justice Jackson could've said "different groups of people may have different conclusions in similar circumstances": we know more re. how some of those differences manifest when it comes to cases like this, where professionals are less jaded by "how the sausage is made", so you can't reduce it to "sometimes people make different judgement calls" Same with your doctors example: compare two different opinions of doctors to the set of different opinions of non-doctors, do you claim that those sets would be mostly identical?

by SllX 3y ago

eviks 3y ago

My comment IS about Sean's article in the Verge link??? And no, it's not just 4 > a judge would have seen A judge would've had a different reaction, just like correctly mentioned in 4 in the article "While a judge might have well decided those deals aren’t out of the norm, the jury may have seen how the sausage is made for the very first time" The Jackson quote isn't relevant: the allegations are substantially the same, and Apple's case is much stronger because it's much more anti-competitive even without autodeleted chats, so the "surprise" from a different outcome is justified

SllX 3y ago
There are substantially different facts that are both public knowledge and in the record. The iPhone operating system has always been an integral part of the Apple developed iPhone product-line. Compare and contrast this with Android which was from the start billed as an open platform that carriers and OEMs could do with as they liked. However, there are two substantial business activities that Google has engaged in outside of developing and maintaining the AOSP and also maintaining their own line of Android software: 1) they contractually required OEMs to include all of a set of key apps they developed for use on Android, giving privileged positions to some of them and requiring that OEMs not fork Android in order to continue to have access to Google’s Play Services. 2) And here’s the money shot: when 3rd party developers such as Epic and according to Tim Sweeney in an interview that was also on The Verge, Activision, were developing their own App Stores, Google made the rounds paying them off to not do so. Epic received the offer, but didn’t take the deal. To go one step further, Google also made the rounds to game developers to keep them from listing in Epic’s store as well. Why does Android have a, as framed by the questionnaire the members of the Jury filled out and answered yes to this question on, a defined market area in and I quote “Android app distribution, worldwide excluding China” but the iPhone does not? Because that is how Google billed Android from the start: an open platform with an open software market. Conversely, Apple has never allowed a secondary app market to develop on iOS outside of the App Store and have taken pains to prevent this whereas separate app storefronts are a feature of the Android operating system but Google has actively worked to undermine their market viability. For what it’s worth, I do think Google should have won this one, but either Epic has epic lawyers, Google’s lawyers walked in thinking this was a Grenada or both. I don’t have a lot of respect for the position that antitrust law is even applicable anywhere within the phone hardware and software market in the US. Either way, this was a substantively different record and a different set of allegations leading to a different outcome. Oh and on this: > And no, it's not just 4 In substance it’s just 4. 5 and 6 are things the Judge would have also had as criteria to make a judgement on. What’s different about point 6 is that he could have kept his thoughts to himself rather than pointing this out to a Jury. In the end, whether it’s a Jury or Judge, you are relying on people to make a judgement call. Trying to predict the judgement call different people will make might be possible if you become an expert in that person, but even then they might surprise you. Like with any working class professionals—Doctors, Accountants, Consultants, PR Agents—you can take any two of them from the same profession, give them a set of facts and desirable outcomes and end up with two completely different opinions. Legal strategy does involve knowing your audience to some degree, but both legal teams went in knowing it was and preparing for a Jury trial. If Google had any disadvantages, it wasn’t solely from this being a Jury trial in a Jury pool they helped to select.
- eviks 3y ago
  >Google billed Android from the start: an open platform with an open software market. Conversely, Apple has never allowed a secondary app market to develop on iOS outside of the App Store and have taken pains to prevent this whereas separate app storefronts are a feature of the Android operating system but Google has actively worked to undermine their market viability. So Apple has always been worse re. anticompetitive behavior, and even with all the shenanigans Android is a much more open platform. How does this help avoid the suprise that only a less worse player got punished? How does "always been bad" logic helps you transform it into "less bad"? The legal issue here is not "hypocrisy" where saying "open", but being "close" counts, but antitrust > For what it’s worth, I do think Google should have won this one, but either Epic has epic lawyers, Google’s lawyers walked in thinking this was a Grenada or both. Or neither, much more plausible that both groups were fine, see the article for a list of bettter reasons > whether it’s a Jury or Judge, you are relying on people to make a judgement call But those a very different people, as your justice Jackson could've said "different groups of people may have different conclusions in similar circumstances": we know more re. how some of those differences manifest when it comes to cases like this, where professionals are less jaded by "how the sausage is made", so you can't reduce it to "sometimes people make different judgement calls" Same with your doctors example: compare two different opinions of doctors to the set of different opinions of non-doctors, do you claim that those sets would be mostly identical?