8 ms·

> Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. Not under US law according to the very court case being discussed. Why are people still making this claim when the

> Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. Not under US law according to the very court case being discussed. Why are people still making this claim when the judge literally concluded otherwise and then a panel of appeals court judges confirmed her ruling?

kelnos 3y ago
Because it's not unreasonable to disagree with the law. The judges may be applying it correctly, and correctly following the process for determining that the market is all mobile apps, and not just iOS mobile apps, but it's reasonable for people to disagree with that on first principles.
- nodamage 3y ago
  The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over multiple decades of case law, I would argue that you can’t have a meaningful discussion about whether a company is or isn’t a monopoly without framing it in that context. And yes while it’s reasonable to disagree with the details of the law, it’s another thing entirely to make up some arbitrary criteria in your head and then declare some company is a monopoly based on your imaginary criteria.
staplers 3y ago
Judges can be wrong. The justice system has many checks and balances but ultimate rule over certain court cases isn't one of them.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Because the case shows that the law needs to be updated, not that the app store isnt a monopoly.
tristan957 3y ago
Why do people still think that OJ is a murderer? Courts get rulings wrong all the time. How many times has someone on death row been exonerated for a crime? The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. Going further, it is the only form of app distribution to greater than 50% of the US market. Vertical integration is a very valid argument to make here, same as it was with Standard Oil, and other companies of the early 20th century.
- nodamage 3y ago
  > The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. That’s not how monopolies are defined under US law, so no it’s not, by definition. It’s always possible to define an arbitrarily narrow market such that one company owns 100% of it. The legal definition of a monopoly requires specific criteria to be met which have not been met in this case.
  - tristan957 3y ago
    Why did you leave off my next sentence from the quote? Can you please link to the definition you are using?
    - nodamage 3y ago
      > Why did you leave off my next sentence from the quote? I quoted the specific line I disagreed with? > Can you please link to the definition you are using? To be honest this issue is too complicated to be boiled down to a simple definition as the criteria have evolved over time across multiple Supreme Court (and lower court) cases. In this particular case the "iOS app distribution" market is considered an "aftermarket" in antitrust law (the foremarket being smartphones), and single-brand aftermarkets are rarely allowed by the courts. If you are genuinely curious about the topic this is a good primer: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/aftermarkets.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-... As are these two court cases: https://casetext.com/case/eastman-kodak-company-v-image-technical-services-inc https://casetext.com/case/eastman-kodak-company-v-image-tech... https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-solution https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-so... (Which were precedent setting and indeed referenced in the Epic v. Apple case.)

kelnos 3y ago

Because it's not unreasonable to disagree with the law. The judges may be applying it correctly, and correctly following the process for determining that the market is all mobile apps, and not just iOS mobile apps, but it's reasonable for people to disagree with that on first principles.

nodamage 3y ago
The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over multiple decades of case law, I would argue that you can’t have a meaningful discussion about whether a company is or isn’t a monopoly without framing it in that context. And yes while it’s reasonable to disagree with the details of the law, it’s another thing entirely to make up some arbitrary criteria in your head and then declare some company is a monopoly based on your imaginary criteria.

staplers 3y ago

Judges can be wrong. The justice system has many checks and balances but ultimate rule over certain court cases isn't one of them.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Because the case shows that the law needs to be updated, not that the app store isnt a monopoly.

tristan957 3y ago

Why do people still think that OJ is a murderer? Courts get rulings wrong all the time. How many times has someone on death row been exonerated for a crime? The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. Going further, it is the only form of app distribution to greater than 50% of the US market. Vertical integration is a very valid argument to make here, same as it was with Standard Oil, and other companies of the early 20th century.

nodamage 3y ago
> The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. That’s not how monopolies are defined under US law, so no it’s not, by definition. It’s always possible to define an arbitrarily narrow market such that one company owns 100% of it. The legal definition of a monopoly requires specific criteria to be met which have not been met in this case.
- tristan957 3y ago
  Why did you leave off my next sentence from the quote? Can you please link to the definition you are using?
  - nodamage 3y ago
    > Why did you leave off my next sentence from the quote? I quoted the specific line I disagreed with? > Can you please link to the definition you are using? To be honest this issue is too complicated to be boiled down to a simple definition as the criteria have evolved over time across multiple Supreme Court (and lower court) cases. In this particular case the "iOS app distribution" market is considered an "aftermarket" in antitrust law (the foremarket being smartphones), and single-brand aftermarkets are rarely allowed by the courts. If you are genuinely curious about the topic this is a good primer: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-oecd-2010-present-other-international-competition-fora/aftermarkets.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/us-submissions-... As are these two court cases: https://casetext.com/case/eastman-kodak-company-v-image-technical-services-inc https://casetext.com/case/eastman-kodak-company-v-image-tech... https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-solution https://casetext.com/case/newcal-industries-v-ikon-office-so... (Which were precedent setting and indeed referenced in the Epic v. Apple case.)