Developers File Antitrust Complaint Against Apple in China (reuters.com) 27
A Chinese law firm has filed a complaint against Apple on behalf of 28 local developers alleging the firm breached antitrust regulations. From a report: The complaint, lodged by Beijing-based Dare & Sure Law Firm, accuses Apple of charging excessive fees and removing apps from its local store without proper explanation, Lin Wei, an attorney at the firm told Reuters on Thursday. "During its localization process Apple has run into several antitrust issues ... after an initial investigation we consulted a number of enterprises and got a very strong response," said Lin. The law firm invited developers to join the complaint in April and on Tuesday filed it to China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission, which oversees antitrust matters in the country.
There goes the wallet garden (Score:1)
Anti (Score:1)
Apple should file an anti-trust lawsuit against the Chinese government itself.
Sour Grapes (Score:2)
Wasn't the time to try and negotiate fees and terms BEFORE you Clicked "Accept"?
This won't survive Summary Judgment (if such a doctrine, or similar, exists in the Chinese Tort-Claims system).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wasn't the time to try and negotiate fees and terms BEFORE you Clicked "Accept"?
This won't survive Summary Judgment (if such a doctrine, or similar, exists in the Chinese Tort-Claims system).
No. I work with China all the time. They way it works in China is first you sign the contract. Then you negotiate. I am not joking either.
Re: (Score:2)
They way it works in China is first you sign the contract. Then you negotiate. I am not joking either.
I also work in China, and I concur with this. It is difficult to enforce contracts, so a written agreement doesn't mean much in practice. Personal relationships and Guanxi are much more important. Start with small deals and work up as you build the relationship. If you aren't sure, then use an escrow service so neither party can screw the other.
Re: (Score:2)
They way it works in China is first you sign the contract. Then you negotiate. I am not joking either.
I also work in China, and I concur with this. It is difficult to enforce contracts, so a written agreement doesn't mean much in practice. Personal relationships and Guanxi are much more important. Start with small deals and work up as you build the relationship. If you aren't sure, then use an escrow service so neither party can screw the other.
Wow! How utterly.... FOREIGN!!! ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I believe tariffs are needed to balance trade because there too many intricate relationships to micromanage by inspectors and lawyers if the US wants to stop discrimination of foreign products and services.
Set a simple tariff to be a percentage of the trade imbalance. Say the tariff is set at 1/5 the imbalance percent. Then if China exports 50% more goods/services to the US than it imports, the tar
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I believe tariffs are needed to balance trade because there too many intricate relationships to micromanage by inspectors and lawyers if the US wants to stop discrimination of foreign products and services.
Set a simple tariff to be a percentage of the trade imbalance. Say the tariff is set at 1/5 the imbalance percent. Then if China exports 50% more goods/services to the US than it imports, the tariff would be 10%.
Activate it gradually to avoid shocking the markets. The tariff is not meant to punish them and dampen overall trade, but rather encourage them to balance things out and be more import-driven. Their ingrained habit is to discriminate against foreign products & services.
Sorry, I am a financial dullard; and nevermind international trade agreements... You might as well be explaining this to your cat/dog/hamster/snake/etc... ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Let me use an example. Company A and company B want to sell a device in China. Chinese Gov't official X approves A's request, but not B's on obscure technicalities, like misspellings or coffee stains on a form. B is a USA firm. B is being discriminated against because X doesn't scrutinize A as heavily.
Now if a US trade inspector Y comes to check this out, it would take a long time to study and process. It's hard to objectively verify X is being more lenient on A than B without digging through a lot of docum
Re:Sour Grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
Rocky Road Indeed (Score:2, Insightful)
For centuries Western nations have exploited China to extract its wealth. Kudos to the Communist Party for managing to reverse the process. Whatever else they have done on human rights or international relations they have started to build a substantial middle class which will be an essential ingredient for any long term stability.
In other news: China has anti-trust laws? Who knew. Any major corporation I have ever dealt with there seem to be mostly owned by the state. So I am now wondering what a
Re: (Score:2)
China was exploited for centuries not because of Western nations, but because of its inept authoritarian government. Let's not forget the last Dynasty in China, Qing Dynasty (1644-1912), was basically a foreign power (The Manchurians) ruling China for 200+ years. The equivalence of Mexico ruling over the US.
Kudos to the Chinese Communist Party for what? Creating a repressive fascist state where the Communist elites wreck the environment and absconded with their riches to live in Western nations, the ve
Re: (Score:1)
You are arguing that two wrongs make a right.
(I resisted the temptation to remove the 3rd "r". See, Mom, I'm improving!)
Re: (Score:2)
You are arguing that two wrongs make a right.
I don't see how.
Case #1: Having your own national resources and wealth plundered by foreigners by force and corruption. Most people would agree that is wrong.
Case #2: Putting a stop to Case #1 and developing a public policy that stops Case #1 and results in an economy where the former plunders are forced to trade for what they used to just take and the terms are not close to what they would choose. I don't see that as a second "wrong." You might, however, make a case for the wrongness of the draconi
Re: (Score:1)
Are you implying the US *recently* exploited China?