3 ms·

Man, that's one tortured legal philosophy... so it's more anticompetitive to allow alternatives and use incentives to deter them, than to forbid them outright?

Man, that's one tortured legal philosophy... so it's more anticompetitive to allow alternatives and use incentives to deter them, than to forbid them outright? Crazy world we live in.

dagmx 2y ago
Well, because it’s about anti-competitive actions. Again, it’s not about simply having a monopoly position. Epic couldn’t prove that Apple had taken anti competitive measures. Google on the other hand had it in writing that they did. It was a slam dunk case from the get go
- solardev 2y ago
  In a sane world, the very fact that Apple doesn't even allow alternative app stores should be in and of itself anticompetitive.
  - wtallis 2y ago
    Easier said than done. You still need some kind of criteria for deciding what is illegal tying vs justifiable integration. You cannot just decide what the outcome should be for Apple while avoiding the general question of how to draw the line that you want Apple to be on the wrong side of.
  - matwood 2y ago
    There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Proving a monopoly is the first hurdle that will continue to be challenging with Apple. That's why defining market is so critical in these cases. The government is already suggesting slices like 'performance smartphones' that make Apple look dominant.
    - tzs 2y ago
      > There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Not quite. There is no need to prove a monopoly in order to prove a violation of US antitrust law. There FTC has a nice summary of the core federal antitrust laws here [1]. Some quotes: > The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." ... > The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." ... > The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). [...] As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. It's pretty much all about unfair competition and about attempts to create a monopoly. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
      - matwood 2y ago
        You're right, I spoke too freely and should have said legal methods of competition. What you're missing from your quote though is 'unreasonable'. Many types of restraint of trade, like exclusive business arrangements, are reasonable until the parties are at or near monopoly status. Or take price fixing that only works when the parties fixing the prices form a monopoly around the good. To tie this back to Google, just being declared a monopoly will now change how they do business. Deals they made before are no longer on the table and would be deemed unfair because Google is a monopoly.
  - dagmx 2y ago
    Well think about it this way: Currently (in the US) no alternative stores for iOS exists. No regulation exists to create multiple stores. In fact, even in the EU, the regulation only states that you have to do so after a certain number of users. Being a monopoly is completely legal as long as you don’t actively prevent competition. Apple maintaining the status quo is not anti competitive. Sure, no competition can exist but as long as Apple isn’t actively squashing competition, it is fine. On the contrary, Apple would have to make effort to allow for competition. And without EU like regulations, there is no legal framework to compel a company to enable competitors. Apple has been very careful to walk that fine line.
paulmd 2y ago
That’s how the law works. For example nvidia is in hot water for the way they treat their partners: restrictions on what they can make, bundling of products, etc. Really a lot of the same stuff as intel and AMD did back in the late 90s/early 2010s with locking down their chipsets etc to force third parties out of the market (although this was never really enforced at the time). Then contrast apple: apple has never sold individual components to partners in the first place. They will not sell you a M1 processor, only a whole MacBook or tablet. And that’s perfectly legal and not anticompetitive at all, actually. What’s the difference? Intel and Nvidia allowed partners to enter this niche, and then crowded them out later. Apple never allowed anyone to enter this niche in the first place. So there’s no actual harm to partners or market competitiveness - there was never a market in the first place. The former is actually legally much worse than the latter - it’s perfectly legal to just sell a phone and not the chips. Think of it like “promissary estoppel” for business relationships. If you make a promise (even a verbal one) and someone else incurs an expense based on that promise, and you renege, you are on the hook for damages because of the money they spent based on your promise! Anticompetiveness is very similar in a sense. If you don’t allow third parties to enter the space, there is no harm to market competitiveness, because there is no market. Once other companies spend billions of dollars to try and enter the market, you can’t just kick them out after the fact. Kicking them out is in fact less fair than never letting them enter in the first place - because letting them enter means they incur R&D expenses etc. That’s a direct harm in a way which “I can’t make a MacBook competitor because they won’t sell me chips!” really isn’t. (leaving aside the mac clone era, which occurred when apple was so small and frankly almost collapsing that there was no actual argument they construed a monopoly or damaged overall market competitiveness at the time)
- solardev 2y ago
  Great explanation, thanks!

Man, that's one tortured legal philosophy... so it's more anticompetitive to allow alternatives and use incentives to deter them, than to forbid them outright? Crazy world we live in.

dagmx 2y ago

Well, because it’s about anti-competitive actions. Again, it’s not about simply having a monopoly position. Epic couldn’t prove that Apple had taken anti competitive measures. Google on the other hand had it in writing that they did. It was a slam dunk case from the get go

solardev 2y ago
In a sane world, the very fact that Apple doesn't even allow alternative app stores should be in and of itself anticompetitive.
- wtallis 2y ago
  Easier said than done. You still need some kind of criteria for deciding what is illegal tying vs justifiable integration. You cannot just decide what the outcome should be for Apple while avoiding the general question of how to draw the line that you want Apple to be on the wrong side of.
- matwood 2y ago
  There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Proving a monopoly is the first hurdle that will continue to be challenging with Apple. That's why defining market is so critical in these cases. The government is already suggesting slices like 'performance smartphones' that make Apple look dominant.
  - tzs 2y ago
    > There is no law with being a monopoly or anticompetitive. A company must be found to be both. Not quite. There is no need to prove a monopoly in order to prove a violation of US antitrust law. There FTC has a nice summary of the core federal antitrust laws here [1]. Some quotes: > The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." ... > The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." ... > The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). [...] As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. It's pretty much all about unfair competition and about attempts to create a monopoly. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...
    - matwood 2y ago
      You're right, I spoke too freely and should have said legal methods of competition. What you're missing from your quote though is 'unreasonable'. Many types of restraint of trade, like exclusive business arrangements, are reasonable until the parties are at or near monopoly status. Or take price fixing that only works when the parties fixing the prices form a monopoly around the good. To tie this back to Google, just being declared a monopoly will now change how they do business. Deals they made before are no longer on the table and would be deemed unfair because Google is a monopoly.
- dagmx 2y ago
  Well think about it this way: Currently (in the US) no alternative stores for iOS exists. No regulation exists to create multiple stores. In fact, even in the EU, the regulation only states that you have to do so after a certain number of users. Being a monopoly is completely legal as long as you don’t actively prevent competition. Apple maintaining the status quo is not anti competitive. Sure, no competition can exist but as long as Apple isn’t actively squashing competition, it is fine. On the contrary, Apple would have to make effort to allow for competition. And without EU like regulations, there is no legal framework to compel a company to enable competitors. Apple has been very careful to walk that fine line.

paulmd 2y ago

That’s how the law works. For example nvidia is in hot water for the way they treat their partners: restrictions on what they can make, bundling of products, etc. Really a lot of the same stuff as intel and AMD did back in the late 90s/early 2010s with locking down their chipsets etc to force third parties out of the market (although this was never really enforced at the time). Then contrast apple: apple has never sold individual components to partners in the first place. They will not sell you a M1 processor, only a whole MacBook or tablet. And that’s perfectly legal and not anticompetitive at all, actually. What’s the difference? Intel and Nvidia allowed partners to enter this niche, and then crowded them out later. Apple never allowed anyone to enter this niche in the first place. So there’s no actual harm to partners or market competitiveness - there was never a market in the first place. The former is actually legally much worse than the latter - it’s perfectly legal to just sell a phone and not the chips. Think of it like “promissary estoppel” for business relationships. If you make a promise (even a verbal one) and someone else incurs an expense based on that promise, and you renege, you are on the hook for damages because of the money they spent based on your promise! Anticompetiveness is very similar in a sense. If you don’t allow third parties to enter the space, there is no harm to market competitiveness, because there is no market. Once other companies spend billions of dollars to try and enter the market, you can’t just kick them out after the fact. Kicking them out is in fact less fair than never letting them enter in the first place - because letting them enter means they incur R&D expenses etc. That’s a direct harm in a way which “I can’t make a MacBook competitor because they won’t sell me chips!” really isn’t. (leaving aside the mac clone era, which occurred when apple was so small and frankly almost collapsing that there was no actual argument they construed a monopoly or damaged overall market competitiveness at the time)

solardev 2y ago
Great explanation, thanks!