3 ms·

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 comp

by 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.

by dagmx 2y ago

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.