3 ms·

I want the government to have a case, here. I want the DOJ to be able to push back against what companies like Apple are doing. However, in court, you have to

I want the government to have a case, here. I want the DOJ to be able to push back against what companies like Apple are doing. However, in court, you have to compare what a company is doing to the letter of the law. It seems US anti-trust laws are vague enough that, if the way big tech companies operate today violates them, the enforcement over the years has been so little that it is hard to apply them now in the spirit they were intended. That’s my impression, anyway. Apple will, of course, argue they are not a monopoly (all their products have competitors, like iOS has Android—even if they tried to kill it). They will argue that having an ecosystem of products in different categories that work together is not illegal, and that executives wanting to entice users to use their products, or deter them from switching, is all the same thing and just good business, not anti-competitive behavior. If it’s already illegal for Apple to prefer and promote their own apps and products and extract exorbitant rent from everyone else, then please, DOJ, put a stop to it. Maybe it’s just all the articles about this that are really poor. As it stands, not having dug into the matter deeply, I’m on the DOJ’s side, but I’d rather be a lawyer for Apple.

atomicnumber3 3y ago
"you have to compare what a company is doing to the letter of the law" No, it is literally the court's job to interpret the law. They are the ones who take the letter of the law and figure out what that actually means, and if history has shown us anything, they have tremendous latitude in that regard.
- dgreensp 3y ago
  What I meant was, the case will be decided by applying the law to the situation, so in order to discuss from the sidelines what could, should, or might happen, we need to look at what it says and how it might be interpreted.
Someone 3y ago
> and that executives wanting to entice users to use their products, or deter them from switching, is all the same thing and just good business, not anti-competitive behavior. But lots of good business becomes anti-competitive behavior once you’re judged to be the subject to antitrust law. So, the main issue is whether antitrust law should apply to them. That, IMO, is a case won as less on the letter of the law (which, as I understand it, is fairly vague) than on what ‘the people’ want it to mean today.

atomicnumber3 3y ago

"you have to compare what a company is doing to the letter of the law" No, it is literally the court's job to interpret the law. They are the ones who take the letter of the law and figure out what that actually means, and if history has shown us anything, they have tremendous latitude in that regard.

dgreensp 3y ago
What I meant was, the case will be decided by applying the law to the situation, so in order to discuss from the sidelines what could, should, or might happen, we need to look at what it says and how it might be interpreted.

Someone 3y ago

> and that executives wanting to entice users to use their products, or deter them from switching, is all the same thing and just good business, not anti-competitive behavior. But lots of good business becomes anti-competitive behavior once you’re judged to be the subject to antitrust law. So, the main issue is whether antitrust law should apply to them. That, IMO, is a case won as less on the letter of the law (which, as I understand it, is fairly vague) than on what ‘the people’ want it to mean today.