3 ms·
This answer is unsatisfying to me because "not allowing trade with 3rd parties" could be seen as a version of "unreasonably restrained trade". In general I thi
by downWidOutaFite 3y ago
This answer is unsatisfying to me because "not allowing trade with 3rd parties" could be seen as a version of "unreasonably restrained trade".
In general I think it's incorrect to try to divine a consistent legal principle from these two cases. Trials have an element of randomness so either case could have gone the other way under different judges and lawyers.
- bobthepanda 3y agoIIRC the Apple case went differently because * it has always been locked down, from the get go, so it has never misrepresented itself to consumers or the people participating in its ecosystem * it gained marketshare despite this very limitation, indicating that to some extent that is what consumers were expecting to purchase. Apple had zero marketshare in phones before iPhone. And many attempts have been made before and since, like Windows Phone, Fire Phone from Amazon, the Facebook phone, etc. * they hadn’t, at the time, told anyone else not to participate in other stores or on other platforms
- notnullorvoid 3y ago> it gained marketshare despite this very limitation, indicating that to some extent that is what consumers were expecting to purchase. Have you ever watched the iPhone keynote? Either way I suggest you watch or rewatch, because it was marketed as a computer. The reason people didn't care about the restrictions (compared to a general purpose computer) at the time was because it was such a leap forward in mobile devices.
- soraminazuki 3y agoThe iPhone was marketed as "an iPod, a phone, and an internet communicator."