nodamage

12 ms·

61.
by nodamage 2y ago
> Apple Italy sold iPhones for 599€s + vat (thus avoiding to pay any corporate taxes in Italy while making billions) Isn't that the whole point of the European Economic Area? That you can freely sell your goods to other countries wi
62.
by nodamage 2y ago
> the case fell apart and ended up a settlement because the Judge presiding over the case violated the court code of conduct by discussing the case with the media. That's a bit of an oversimplification. Key parts of the original rul
63.
by nodamage 2y ago
> I'm surprised there haven't been more attempts at a "tying" argument against Apple's App Store and their platforms, but I'm also not a lawyer. It has what looks like a pretty clear, long history of being c
64.
by nodamage 2y ago
> Antitrust doesn't care about the market share, it cares about actions taken to restrain competition. Not sure how this myth keeps getting perpetuated. The antitrust laws that are relevant to the lawsuits against Apple (specificall
65.
by nodamage 2y ago
As I understand it the threshold is usually $100,000 in revenue or 200 transactions (following the Wayfair decision), the latter of which is easily reached...
66.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Monopolies and monopolistic practices are flatly illegal. You are mistaken. Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been inte
67.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Monopoly here is legal jargon for market power. Market power and monopoly power are not the same thing. I will let the DOJ explain: Market power and monopoly power are related but not the same. The Supreme Court has defined market pow
68.
by nodamage 3y ago
I've seen this quoted multiple times now and I do not think it is the slam dunk people think it is. A literal monopoly is 100% market share, of course that is not required for antitrust law to apply. But the people who quote this inten
69.
by nodamage 3y ago
> The first is their attempt to redefine what the market is in order to declare Apple a "monopoly": they've posited a completely separate market for "performance smartphones", and tried to use total revenue rathe
70.
by nodamage 3y ago
Sony Music also sued Cox (and won) on willful contributory infringement because they were aware specific users were repeatedly sharing copyrighted material and still continued offering service to those users.
71.
by nodamage 3y ago
This case does not prove what you think it does because the market for "Intel compatible PC operating systems" does not consist of a single competitor (there are much stricter legal requirements when alleging a single-competitor m
72.
by nodamage 3y ago
Market analysis under US antitrust law doesn't work that way. You don't just get to choose an arbitrarily narrow market such that a single competitor by definition owns 100% of it, otherwise plaintiffs would basically never lose i
73.
by nodamage 3y ago
> It was very close to splitting Microsoft because Microsoft was held to have monopolistic market share and was abusing its monopolistic position in operating systems to illegally and anticompetitively push their web browser. Violation o
74.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Which is ironic, considering that the App Store is likely one of the largest malware distribution vectors on the planet. Sorry but the actual statistics from mobile security companies that track this stuff show otherwise. From Nokia&#x
75.
by nodamage 3y ago
That's a very condescending accusation you've made, but okay I'll bite. How exactly does the OS prevent this? Just to be very clear, the scenario is: 1) The app requests access to the microphone. 2) The user grants the app ac
76.
by nodamage 3y ago
And? You can say the same about pretty much anyone that sells anything. Why does a restaurant charge $15 for a cocktail that costs them 50 cents to make?
77.
by nodamage 3y ago
I'm quite not sure what you're asking for an example of?
78.
by nodamage 3y ago
I mean ultimately both companies have invested R&D into building their SDKs and it comes across as bizarre to me to suggest that one company should be legally banned from charging licensing fees for their use.
79.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Additionally, those privacy controls are more fundamental than those in the App Store. It's more important that the app not be able to toggle the microphone at will than for you to be able to control what it does with that audio a
80.
by nodamage 3y ago
The key difference of course is the App Store can take direct action against that app in such a scenario.
81.
by nodamage 3y ago
So Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo too? So much for "ridiculous by all industry standards" when there is an entire software industry where this is commonplace.
82.
by nodamage 3y ago
> The notion that maker of the toolchain gets to claim a percentage of what the app written using it brings in is ridiculous by all industry standards. Do you also believe that Epic's Unreal Engine pricing is also ridiculous under t
83.
by nodamage 3y ago
Sandboxing insufficiently addresses this problem as permissions can be granted by the user for legitimate purposes and then once granted they could be abused to violate user privacy.
84.
by nodamage 3y ago
Privacy controls are not a panacea against abuse by malicious developers. Permissions can be granted for legitimate purposes and then abused for nefarious purposes once granted. Many of the App Store privacy rules relate to what you are all
85.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Apple doesn't develop those SDKs and tools in order to make money selling them to developers Yes, they do. They explicitly stated so during the Epic trial. Otherwise there would be no fee at all.
86.
by nodamage 3y ago
The primary purpose of the 30% fee is not payment processing or delivering updates, it is the licensing fee for the use of Apple's intellectual property (SDKs and developer tools).
87.
by nodamage 3y ago
Under US law the requirements for recognizing single brand aftermarkets are very particular, that’s why Epic failed to prove Apple held a monopoly over iOS software distribution.
88.
by nodamage 3y ago
> This is just literally wrong, by-definition. No it's not. There are plenty of ways to distribute software without Apple being involved at all. Perhaps you meant to argue that Apple has a monopoly on iOS software distribution , bu
89.
by nodamage 3y ago
The first half of your claim is false, "iOS app distribution" was not accepted as a valid "relevant market" in the very court case being discussed. But I think you knew that already.
90.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Why did you leave off my next sentence from the quote? I quoted the specific line I disagreed with? > Can you please link to the definition you are using? To be honest this issue is too complicated to be boiled down to a simple defi

More ›