3 ms·

sorry. no real desire to go further. I was simply pointing out that perhaps "antitrust" does mean what AJ007 thought it did. I believe there is a hint of that h

sorry. no real desire to go further. I was simply pointing out that perhaps "antitrust" does mean what AJ007 thought it did. I believe there is a hint of that here. Probably not enough to make a legal case but enough to add another example to the "Some times Apple can be a real dick" list.

tptacek 15y ago
Sure. If you wanted to take this further, a source linked from DOJ's website: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. v. Hyde (b) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of anesthesiological services separate from hospital services to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer anesthesiological services separately from hospital services. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the contract illegal. Only if patients are forced to purchase the contracting firm's services as a result of the hospital's market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, patients are free to enter a competing hospital and to use another anesthesiologist instead of the firm. Obviously, substitute "iPhone" for "Jefferson Parish Hospital", "iCoud" for bundled "anesthesiological services", and "Android" for "competing hospital" that customers are "free to enter".
- zaroth 15y ago
  Here, let me help you with that ;-) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of cloud storage separate from a smartphone OS to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer cloud storage separately from the smartphone OS. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the contract illegal. Only if user are forced to purchase Apple's services as a result of Apple's market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, users are free to purchase a competing smartphone and to use another cloud storage provider instead of Apple.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Right, but they're not forced to purchase Apple's services; just like the patients at the hospital who have no choice of anasthesiologists, Apple customers can simply select a different vendor.
    - nalal 15y ago
      I'm not a lawyer but I play one on internet message boards.

tptacek 15y ago

Sure. If you wanted to take this further, a source linked from DOJ's website: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/2/ Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. v. Hyde (b) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of anesthesiological services separate from hospital services to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer anesthesiological services separately from hospital services. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the contract illegal. Only if patients are forced to purchase the contracting firm's services as a result of the hospital's market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, patients are free to enter a competing hospital and to use another anesthesiologist instead of the firm. Obviously, substitute "iPhone" for "Jefferson Parish Hospital", "iCoud" for bundled "anesthesiological services", and "Android" for "competing hospital" that customers are "free to enter".

zaroth 15y ago
Here, let me help you with that ;-) No tying arrangement can exist here unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of cloud storage separate from a smartphone OS to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer cloud storage separately from the smartphone OS. The fact that the exclusive contract requires purchase of two services that would otherwise be purchased separately does not make the contract illegal. Only if user are forced to purchase Apple's services as a result of Apple's market power would the arrangement have anticompetitive consequences. If no forcing is present, users are free to purchase a competing smartphone and to use another cloud storage provider instead of Apple.
- tptacek 15y ago
  Right, but they're not forced to purchase Apple's services; just like the patients at the hospital who have no choice of anasthesiologists, Apple customers can simply select a different vendor.
  - nalal 15y ago
    I'm not a lawyer but I play one on internet message boards.