nodamage

57 ms·

541.
by nodamage 6y ago
Most of the discussion on this topic has been around who is morally right, but I've been curious to find out how strong Epic's legal case is. Epic's lawsuit alleges antitrust violations in two different markets: 1) the &q
542.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The cost of switching phone platforms is massive compared to the app market. Phones can cost over $1000, apps are commonly $1, a difference of a thousand fold. And that's only the hardware cost. Then you have issues if there is an
543.
by nodamage 6y ago
> US antitrust is unlikely to side with Epic here. Having done a little digging into the relevant case law I agree with your assessment, US courts have generally been very reluctant to find antitrust violations in aftermarket scenarios w
544.
by nodamage 6y ago
Be that as it may, it's not really relevant to the question of whether Apple requiring apps to be distributed by their own App Store constitutes an antitrust violation.
545.
by nodamage 6y ago
Both of those cases were about whether reverse engineering violates copyright law, they're not really relevant to the antitrust claims Epic is alleging in their lawsuits.
546.
by nodamage 6y ago
I am curious if any lawyers can weigh in on whether or not the reasoning in Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC ( https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-s... ) would apply to the
547.
by nodamage 6y ago
IANAL but my understanding of antitrust cases is that voluntary consent to a EULA is indeed a relevant factor in determining market power for antitrust claims. See the discussion in Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC :
548.
by nodamage 6y ago
So, under current US case law, the courts have generally found companies to be not liable for "aftermarket" antitrust claims if: 1) The manufacturer lacks sufficient market power in the "foremarket". (In the case of Appl
549.
by nodamage 6y ago
Which specific lawsuits are you referring to?
550.
by nodamage 6y ago
It does matter if your goal is to sue Apple on anti-trust grounds, as Epic has done.
551.
by nodamage 6y ago
If one company (let's say, Tesla) owned half the electric car charging stations in town, and another company (let's say, Nissan) owned the other half, and Tesla's charging stations could only be used on Tesla vehicles and Nis
552.
by nodamage 6y ago
Except in order for that game to be in a GameStop, Walmart, or KMart, the developer of the game has to sign a publisher agreement with Microsoft. This agreement gives Microsoft a royalty for every copy sold, plus approval rights over the fi
553.
by nodamage 6y ago
Epic attempts to argue that the "iOS App Distribution Market" is a separate market from the overall app market, but if you look at their arguments, they apply equally to the video game market. - Games are platform specific, games
554.
by nodamage 6y ago
The same is true for game consoles. If you buy an Xbox you cannot decide to buy Nintendo games for it. Yet I don't think anyone would claim "games for Xbox", "games for Playstation", and "games for Nintendo&quo
555.
by nodamage 6y ago
The two are inextricably linked. Which apps are available on a phone are part of the decision of which phone you might prefer to buy.
556.
by nodamage 6y ago
"If you have an Xbox and need a game, and you could install a Nintendo game on your Xbox, then Xbox games and Nintendo games would be the same market. But since you can't, they're not." Sorry, that makes no sense. Micros
557.
by nodamage 6y ago
You realize that's actually the case, right? If Nintendo wanted to publish Mario Kart on the Xbox they would have to sign a publisher agreement with Microsoft and pay a royalty for every copy of Mario Kart sold on the Xbox.
558.
by nodamage 6y ago
I was not actually trying to make an analogy here to the overall situation, only pointing out the absurdity of determining whether a company has a monopoly based on arbitrarily restricting the definition of the market. That is not how the c
559.
by nodamage 6y ago
I can't speak for every country, but in the EU I think it's likely the case will be thrown out due to the inability to prove that Apple has "substantial market power" with 25% market share. The Commission considers that
560.
by nodamage 6y ago
I don't disagree with you here. iOS and Android definitely constitute a duopoly worldwide, and Apple's market share in the US may be high enough for anti-trust concerns to apply. The key point is the percentage market share is an
561.
by nodamage 6y ago
The apps available are part of the purchasing decision of which phone to buy, just like which games are available are part of the purchasing decision of which console to buy. You don't get to buy an Xbox and then demand to be able to p
562.
by nodamage 6y ago
> That's because it would still be true, because the market for apps for a particular type of phone that has its own type of apps is a separate market no matter what percentage of the market for phones that type of phone represents.
563.
by nodamage 6y ago
You don't get to arbitrarily redefine the market until you hit your desired threshold either. The courts will typically consider whether the consumer has reasonable access to alternatives to your product. Which in the case of Apple, th
564.
by nodamage 6y ago
The way you have defined the word monopoly does not make legal or practical sense. Consider this, if Apple only ever made 100 smartphones and sold them to 100 people and had 0.00001% share of the smartphone market, no one in their right min
565.
by nodamage 6y ago
100% of lemonade sold on my front lawn is sold through my lemonade stand. Is that a monopoly too? Of course not, because it's not representative of the overall market and the alternative choices the consumer has. > It' doesn&#x
566.
by nodamage 6y ago
There is clearly an "alternative mall" on the market, it's called Android. With 75% global market share they are the ones that are much more likely to be a monopoly, yet for some reason all the accusations are instead being l
567.
by nodamage 6y ago
Just like you can choose not to be a Walmart customer, you can also choose not to be an Apple customer.
568.
by nodamage 6y ago
Spotify is no more entitled to Apple's customers than Nike is entitled to Walmart's customers. If Nike wants to sell shoes in Walmart they will have to accept Walmarts terms, or find another store to sell in.
569.
by nodamage 6y ago
> And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because, unlike the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles to buy Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee. They can choose a non-Apple ph
570.
by nodamage 6y ago
Not sure where you got 25% from? > The Commission considers that low market shares are generally a good proxy for the absence of substantial market power. The Commission's experience suggests that dominance is not likely if the und

More ›