3 ms·

> forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices. I didn't knew that Amazon had 20 Google apps tied to its Android devices By the way, is calle MADA, no MARA.

by Oletros 12y ago

> forcing 20 apps to be tied on Android devices. I didn't knew that Amazon had 20 Google apps tied to its Android devices By the way, is calle MADA, no MARA. Perhaps, instead of crying for downvoting you have to inform better.

ocdtrekkie 12y ago
Yes, one spelling issue. Sorry, the MADA isn't discussed frequently (because Google's pretty good at keeping it out of the public eye), so I spelled it wrong. The issue is that the Play Store is tied to 20 other apps. In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad.
- Oletros 12y ago
  > In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad. If it violates so many laws it will be easy to provide at least one proof of that claim, isn't?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad. Can you cite the specific provision of U.S. law that it violates?
  - ocdtrekkie 12y ago
    Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act,[2] and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.[3] A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."[4] Tying may be the action of several companies as well as the work of just one firm. Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements: (1) two separate products or services are involved; (2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product; (3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product; (4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_%28commerce%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_%28commerce%29 Assuming that the Wikipedia article is factually correct on the requirements, provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Assuming that the Wikipedia article is factually correct on the requirements It seems loosely correct. > provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true. I'd love to see your analysis supporting the claim that condition 3 ("the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product") is true, including your definition of the relevant market and your analysis establishing that it is a relevant market under antitrust law.

by Oletros 12y ago

ocdtrekkie 12y ago

Yes, one spelling issue. Sorry, the MADA isn't discussed frequently (because Google's pretty good at keeping it out of the public eye), so I spelled it wrong. The issue is that the Play Store is tied to 20 other apps. In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad.

Oletros 12y ago
> In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad. If it violates so many laws it will be easy to provide at least one proof of that claim, isn't?
dragonwriter 12y ago
> In a fashion that violates both laws here in the United States and in other countries abroad. Can you cite the specific provision of U.S. law that it violates?
- ocdtrekkie 12y ago
  Certain tying arrangements are illegal in the United States under both the Sherman Antitrust Act,[2] and Section 3 of the Clayton Act.[3] A tying arrangement is defined as "an agreement by a party to sell one product but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees he will not purchase the product from any other supplier."[4] Tying may be the action of several companies as well as the work of just one firm. Success on a tying claim typically requires proof of four elements: (1) two separate products or services are involved; (2) the purchase of the tying product is conditioned on the additional purchase of the tied product; (3) the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product; (4) a not insubstantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product market is affected.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_%28commerce%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_%28commerce%29 Assuming that the Wikipedia article is factually correct on the requirements, provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Assuming that the Wikipedia article is factually correct on the requirements It seems loosely correct. > provisions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true. I'd love to see your analysis supporting the claim that condition 3 ("the seller has sufficient market power in the market for the tying product") is true, including your definition of the relevant market and your analysis establishing that it is a relevant market under antitrust law.