3 ms·
You assume the US can just sue however they want. In practice, even the US DOJ holds back, for fear their lawyers won't be as good as Apple's (or other company
by gjsman-1000 3y ago
You assume the US can just sue however they want.
In practice, even the US DOJ holds back, for fear their lawyers won't be as good as Apple's (or other company's). Which, on one hand, shows the relative impartiality of the court system. On the other hand, it means that just as much as a corporation would likely loose a lawsuit against a tech giant, the US government also fears that outcome.
Also, unlike a civil matter, losing an antitrust case could be disastrous for the government. The Microsoft case, for example, was a technical victory, but a practical loss that put fear in the government to use antitrust action for almost 2 decades. From their perspective, it way too much work (5 years of litigation) for too little an outcome (yay, we've decoupled Internet Explorer and got a few concessions). And the main reason why, was because the judge squawked and broke ethics rules, which was awfully unpredictable and unpreventable.
- bevekspldnw 3y agoNot an issue of being as good or not, it’s resources - Apples are infinite, the DoJs are not.
- cryptonector 3y agoI believe you have this backwards.
- passwordoops 3y agoThe FTC anti-trust department has been pretty well gutted, so yes with Apple the DOJ is still facing an entity with relatively infinite resources.
- Hasu 3y agoFTC antitrust is not part of the DOJ. The antitrust division of the DOJ only got $255m last year, not just to fight Apple, but to fight _all_ antitrust cases and run the division. Apple made $97b in profits last year, and reportedly had a legal budget in excess of $1b as of 2017. So yes, Apple's legal resources for this case are effectively infinite compared to the DOJ's.
- cryptonector 3y agoThe U.S. can add funds to that department as needed and can exceed all of what Apple or any other company can spend on this.
- passwordoops 3y agoAnd politics. The general policy of the FTC from the 1980s until about 2020 was that mergers and market concentration are good for consumers and the economy as a whole. Just to take one example, Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked, but the DOJ under Obama, carrying on the policies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush, decided not to pursue it.
- SllX 3y ago> Facebook buying Instagram 100% should have been blocked On what grounds? Instagram was a small startup with about 30M users when Facebook proffered a deal. People legitimately thought they were overpaying at the time and while it was a hot app, it became the cultural phenomenon it is today under Facebook’s stewardship.
- afavour 3y agoProbably an easier argument to sub out the acquisition of WhatsApp instead.
- SllX 3y agoWhatsApp had a much bigger user base but was still a small startup with about 50 employees and was losing money. The scummy thing was the role Onavo played in Facebook identifying it as an acquisition target, but that’s not the same as illegal. I think this is still a weak case.