nodamage

10 ms·

91.
by nodamage 3y ago
The details of the two cases are very different and here, details matter. The courts have already rejected "iOS app distribution" as a valid antitrust market. Edit: In case you're wondering why "Android app distribution&
92.
by nodamage 3y ago
No, US antitrust law does not allow a single company's product to be considered a relevant market unless very specific criteria are met. Epic attempted to make this very argument in court and failed. "iOS app distribution" is
93.
by nodamage 3y ago
The judge literally suggested Apple could do this in her ruling: "Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission." "T
94.
by nodamage 3y ago
> The App Store is a monopoly by definition. It is the only form of app distribution to 100% of iPhone users. That’s not how monopolies are defined under US law, so no it’s not, by definition. It’s always possible to define an arbitraril
95.
by nodamage 3y ago
The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over multiple decades of case law, I would argue that you can’t have a meaningful discussion about whether a company is or isn’t a monopoly without framing it in that context. And yes whil
96.
by nodamage 3y ago
This is not particularly unusual for royalty licensing scenarios. As a matter of fact Epic's Unreal Engine EULA has a similar clause: You agree to keep accurate books and records related to your development, manufacture, Distribution,
97.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Therefore Apple App store is a monopoly. Not under US law according to the very court case being discussed. Why are people still making this claim when the judge literally concluded otherwise and then a panel of appeals court judges co
98.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Unfortunately most 'big' apps just disable this for whatever reason. Probably because they already have Mac apps built with native Mac controls designed specifically for use with a mouse and keyboard. Why would they enable th
99.
by nodamage 3y ago
Can you specify which other incidents on that list you think are relevant?
100.
by nodamage 3y ago
I don't understand how you arrived at the number 51. Did you just tally up all the incidents in that list that occurred after 2009? That list includes a bunch of incidents that are not really relevant for assessing risk level when flyi
101.
by nodamage 3y ago
For the purposes of US antitrust law the onus is on Epic to prove that consumers did not know, and they did not provide any evidence either way.
102.
by nodamage 3y ago
I agree that the cases are very different, I'm only speaking to the particulars of the Apple case here. That said I think the jury vs bench is a red herring here given that Apple prevailed at the appeals court level where there is no j
103.
by nodamage 3y ago
There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding why Apple won their case against Epic while Google lost theirs. The key reason Apple won their case is the fact that consumers generally purchase iPhones knowing ahead of time th
104.
by nodamage 3y ago
If you read the entire document they make it clear it is now required to amortize SRE expenditures and the majority of software development activities (as I previously quoted) are now considered SRE expenditures. "(3) Software develop
105.
by nodamage 3y ago
> Neither the IRS nor Congress has clarified the intent of the change, and there are solid arguments for both interpretations. Not true anymore, the IRS guidance linked above in Notice 2023-63 specifically indicates they are adopting int
106.
by nodamage 3y ago
Sure, but not sure how that’s relevant to my point that Apple does not actually move US profits offshore. The major controversies around Apple’s tax practices are from: 1. Apple not paying US tax rates on products sold outside of the US bec
107.
by nodamage 3y ago
This is a common misconception but not actually true. If Apple sells a copy of your app to an American customer the revenue from their royalty is booked to Apple Inc. (the U.S. company) and they would pay U.S. income tax on that sale. The o
108.
by nodamage 3y ago
It's complicated as there were many different claims made against Microsoft in the lawsuit, some were upheld on appeal and some were overturned. But the specific claim I was replying to (that bundling Internet Explorer with Windows vio
109.
by nodamage 3y ago
> This is basically exactly what Microsoft was found guilty of in the late 90s: abusing their monopoly power in operating systems to advance their position in the Internet by making IE the default browser and insisting, despite all evid
110.
Tell HN: New IRS guidance on software development for Section 174 amortization
13 points by nodamage 3y ago|3 comments
111.
by nodamage 3y ago
When people complain about Apple providing built-in operating system functionality that you previously needed a third-party app for it always comes across as bizarre to me. The user experience is much better if certain functions are availab
112.
by nodamage 3y ago
Seems like most people are commenting in the context of web apps but I find ORMs are most useful on the client side (mobile/desktop apps) where objects can be long lived and you want to take advantage of ORM specific patterns like iden
113.
by nodamage 3y ago
If you paid for the flight with a credit card check if they offer any sort of trip delay coverage.
114.
by nodamage 3y ago
I mean you said the judge made up a market out of thin air but what actually happened was she agreed with Apple's market definition minus gaming consoles.
115.
by nodamage 3y ago
> The issue is that the judge invented a market that nobody considered to be a market before the trial. Not true. I'll just quote from the ruling: "Epic proposed two single-brand markets: the aftermarkets for iOS app distribut
116.
by nodamage 3y ago
Well at this point there's only one higher court they could go to (if they'd even take up the case). Frankly the case law on this subject is pretty well established and the judges have just been following existing precedent.
117.
by nodamage 3y ago
> The judge in the Epic trial, YGR, invented a whole new market concept out of thin air, "digital mobile gaming transactions", a market that neither side in the case argued for. I thought that was complete crap and a bad decisi
118.
by nodamage 3y ago
> "necessarily illegal"? So... it might be illegal? That will depend on the outcome of the several current ongoing lawsuits and has not been established at this stage. I mean, just look at this case. A lot of people decided wha
119.
by nodamage 3y ago
You said: "I'll never understand why we've done nothing legally about this." But nothing you've described is necessarily illegal so I think my point about your misconception stands. It might be anticompetitive (in y
120.
by nodamage 3y ago
> I wonder if this argument came up. Epic did raise this argument during the original trial however since they failed to establish a single-brand aftermarket they never got to the point where the SSNIP analysis would have been performe

More ›