3 ms·

> to the point that it relies on the courts to interpret it The courts have been used to chip away at the very simple and straight forward anti trust laws that

> to the point that it relies on the courts to interpret it The courts have been used to chip away at the very simple and straight forward anti trust laws that were established in this country after years of having grappled with the problem in it's unchecked form. > But antitrust cases are rare to begin with This is a feature of _recent_ history and does not at all fairly represent the large body of jurisprudence that has been issued on this subject. People really seem to misattribute much of our modern system of commerce to modernity and ignore the laws and decisions that were laid down nearly a century ago. > try to name one dealing with a company of that nature other than Microsoft. Iqvia holdings. > Maybe it's more like refusing to provide your competitors with delivery service They have a monopoly on the device and the app store. So, they create their own monopoly over the delivery service. They're not competing with "delivery" in general, but with "apps that are allowed to use these special features on the iphone and are directly approved by apple's own internal process." This seems exceptionally clear cut. > Congress pretty much authorized the courts to do whatever they want on this. No, they have not. Congress has ignored the courts interference int he law and has made no effort to clarify their statues. This is not the same as "authorizing" the courts to "do whatever they want."

pests 3y ago
The exception makes the rule.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The courts have been used to chip away at the very simple and straight forward anti trust laws that were established in this country after years of having grappled with the problem in it's unchecked form. The problem with simple and straight forward is that it's a law prohibiting something. If you buy the output of some factory which is the input to your own product, is that in restraint of trade? Does it matter if it's 10% or 50% or 90% or 100% of the industry's production capacity for that input? What if it's only 10% but it's the last 10% and the other 90% is already locked up in contracts with companies in other industries? There's nothing in the statute to answer questions like that so the courts have to make something up. There's a pretty good argument that they've narrowed the antitrust laws too much over time but it's hard to claim that Congress didn't leave things open to interpretation. > This is a feature of _recent_ history and does not at all fairly represent the large body of jurisprudence that has been issued on this subject. People really seem to misattribute much of our modern system of commerce to modernity and ignore the laws and decisions that were laid down nearly a century ago. A century ago there wasn't an internet-connected computer chip in everything that allows the vendor to exercise control over a product even after they've sold it. > Iqvia holdings. This appears to be a case about a merger between healthcare companies. Which part of it are you implying is relevant to what Apple is doing? > They have a monopoly on the device and the app store. So, they create their own monopoly over the delivery service. They're not competing with "delivery" in general, but with "apps that are allowed to use these special features on the iphone and are directly approved by apple's own internal process." They're presumably going to argue that you can create an account with AWS and install whatever applications you want on your cloud server and access them from your iPhone, or something like that. > Congress has ignored the courts interference int he law and has made no effort to clarify their statues. This is not the same as "authorizing" the courts to "do whatever they want." Let's put it this way: If the courts want to find Apple in violation, it would be difficult to argue that this is outside the scope of what Congress intended based on the wording of the laws Congress passed.
- junofan 3y ago
  I think you’re misunderstanding tying by getting it backwards. If you want to buy Windows, you have to install Internet Explorer and agree not to install Netscape Navigator. The issue is the economic interest in the product being sold. The equivalent would be if you want to buy an iPhone, you have to use iMessage. Which is not the case. Walled gardens aren’t antitrust violations.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > If you want to buy Windows, you have to install Internet Explorer and agree not to install Netscape Navigator. If you want to buy iMessage, you have to use iOS/macOS. You might be confused because it actually works in both directions. iMessage achieves a large network by being bundled with iPhones, then the large network creates market power and iMessage is tied to Apple devices which pressures other people to buy those devices, even when they'd have preferred not to, in order to avoid the green bubble. This is one of the reasons this kind of tying is prohibited. Leveraging a dominant position in market A increases your share of market B and leveraging a dominant position in market B increases your share of market A, repeat until the market is concentrated into an oligopoly of vertically integrated conglomerates or a monopoly. > Walled gardens aren’t antitrust violations. Why not? Anti-competitive practices don't become otherwise just because you say "it's for your own good" as you lock the door.
- akira2501 3y ago
  > If you buy the output of some factory which is the input to your own product, is that in restraint of trade? No. Why would you think it is? It's a restraint of trade if there's an illegal agreement between the two companies that unfairly disadvantages other purchasers. Or it's a restraint of trade if you've bought up all the other suppliers so there is only one. These concepts are enshrined in laws that are pretty simple to read, you're inventing conflict where there hasn't been any. > This appears to be a case about a merger between healthcare companies. That's not what it is. It's a digital healthcare advertising company. Software is at the heart of the case. > They're presumably going to argue that you can create an account with AWS and install whatever applications you want on your cloud server and access them from your iPhone, or something like that. Does that have platform parity with apps from the app store? If not, it's a flawed argument. > If the courts want to find Apple in violation The court doesn't _want_ anything. Other than for the parties to settle their disputes outside of court. When they can't, they rule, and often pretty carefully because they don't want to get overturned on appeal. This isn't something that's happening to Apple, it's a strategy they've employed, in defiance of the law, in the hopes that they were going to be able to get away with it. That was a good short term gamble, because they almost got two decades out of it, but the courts have caught up to the market, and they're about to get the law applied to them. If this bothers anyone that much, familiarize yourself with the laws, and then advocate against them. I think if you actually prepare to do this, you'll immediately understand that almost every consumer in America will be against you.

pests 3y ago

The exception makes the rule.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The courts have been used to chip away at the very simple and straight forward anti trust laws that were established in this country after years of having grappled with the problem in it's unchecked form. The problem with simple and straight forward is that it's a law prohibiting something. If you buy the output of some factory which is the input to your own product, is that in restraint of trade? Does it matter if it's 10% or 50% or 90% or 100% of the industry's production capacity for that input? What if it's only 10% but it's the last 10% and the other 90% is already locked up in contracts with companies in other industries? There's nothing in the statute to answer questions like that so the courts have to make something up. There's a pretty good argument that they've narrowed the antitrust laws too much over time but it's hard to claim that Congress didn't leave things open to interpretation. > This is a feature of _recent_ history and does not at all fairly represent the large body of jurisprudence that has been issued on this subject. People really seem to misattribute much of our modern system of commerce to modernity and ignore the laws and decisions that were laid down nearly a century ago. A century ago there wasn't an internet-connected computer chip in everything that allows the vendor to exercise control over a product even after they've sold it. > Iqvia holdings. This appears to be a case about a merger between healthcare companies. Which part of it are you implying is relevant to what Apple is doing? > They have a monopoly on the device and the app store. So, they create their own monopoly over the delivery service. They're not competing with "delivery" in general, but with "apps that are allowed to use these special features on the iphone and are directly approved by apple's own internal process." They're presumably going to argue that you can create an account with AWS and install whatever applications you want on your cloud server and access them from your iPhone, or something like that. > Congress has ignored the courts interference int he law and has made no effort to clarify their statues. This is not the same as "authorizing" the courts to "do whatever they want." Let's put it this way: If the courts want to find Apple in violation, it would be difficult to argue that this is outside the scope of what Congress intended based on the wording of the laws Congress passed.

junofan 3y ago
I think you’re misunderstanding tying by getting it backwards. If you want to buy Windows, you have to install Internet Explorer and agree not to install Netscape Navigator. The issue is the economic interest in the product being sold. The equivalent would be if you want to buy an iPhone, you have to use iMessage. Which is not the case. Walled gardens aren’t antitrust violations.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > If you want to buy Windows, you have to install Internet Explorer and agree not to install Netscape Navigator. If you want to buy iMessage, you have to use iOS/macOS. You might be confused because it actually works in both directions. iMessage achieves a large network by being bundled with iPhones, then the large network creates market power and iMessage is tied to Apple devices which pressures other people to buy those devices, even when they'd have preferred not to, in order to avoid the green bubble. This is one of the reasons this kind of tying is prohibited. Leveraging a dominant position in market A increases your share of market B and leveraging a dominant position in market B increases your share of market A, repeat until the market is concentrated into an oligopoly of vertically integrated conglomerates or a monopoly. > Walled gardens aren’t antitrust violations. Why not? Anti-competitive practices don't become otherwise just because you say "it's for your own good" as you lock the door.
akira2501 3y ago
> If you buy the output of some factory which is the input to your own product, is that in restraint of trade? No. Why would you think it is? It's a restraint of trade if there's an illegal agreement between the two companies that unfairly disadvantages other purchasers. Or it's a restraint of trade if you've bought up all the other suppliers so there is only one. These concepts are enshrined in laws that are pretty simple to read, you're inventing conflict where there hasn't been any. > This appears to be a case about a merger between healthcare companies. That's not what it is. It's a digital healthcare advertising company. Software is at the heart of the case. > They're presumably going to argue that you can create an account with AWS and install whatever applications you want on your cloud server and access them from your iPhone, or something like that. Does that have platform parity with apps from the app store? If not, it's a flawed argument. > If the courts want to find Apple in violation The court doesn't _want_ anything. Other than for the parties to settle their disputes outside of court. When they can't, they rule, and often pretty carefully because they don't want to get overturned on appeal. This isn't something that's happening to Apple, it's a strategy they've employed, in defiance of the law, in the hopes that they were going to be able to get away with it. That was a good short term gamble, because they almost got two decades out of it, but the courts have caught up to the market, and they're about to get the law applied to them. If this bothers anyone that much, familiarize yourself with the laws, and then advocate against them. I think if you actually prepare to do this, you'll immediately understand that almost every consumer in America will be against you.