Apple To Ask US Supreme Court To Undo App Store Order In Epic Games Case (reuters.com) 53
Apple said it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a judge's order in the antitrust case filed by Epic Games, the creator of "Fortnite." The order, issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, largely upheld a previous ruling that prohibits Apple from restricting developers from including links to alternative payment options in their apps, potentially reducing Apple's sales commissions. Reuters reports: Apple said in a court filing (PDF) it will ask the justices to take up its appeal of a ruling on Friday by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that kept in place most of the order issued in 2021 by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. [...] Apple's attorneys in Monday's filing said the 9th Circuit reached too far in issuing a nationwide injunction against Apple alleging that it violated a California state unfair competition law. Apple said its petition in the Supreme Court that it will raise "far-reaching and important" questions about the power of judges to issue broad injunctions.
Tim Cook said: (Score:2)
"[...] we obey the laws where we do business" [bilyonaryo.com].... "[except when we don't like it because it cuts into our massive revenues]"
Re:Tim Cook said: (Score:5, Insightful)
And? They have complied with the court order. Now they are seeking clarification. This is very much following the process as it is designed.
There is no law against what Apple did specifically. There is a vague law that is open to legal interpretation governing the specifics of each individual case as it is raised.
It's like the difference between a laws that says "$100 fine for exceeding the posted speed limit" and a law that says "You shall not drive irresponsibly fast or face penalties." Who decides it is irresponsible? Or what are the penalties?
I look for any excuse to shit on Apple, but your quote isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. It doesn't automatically follow that tethering on the edge of legal interpretation automatically leads to a lawsuit.
Here's a litmus test for you: This wouldn't be going to the supreme court if Apple were sure that what they were doing was illegal and wouldn't be overturned. And if it does get overturned will you eat a large humble pie?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh your callback to your own stupidity. I guess you learnt nothing from that post either, if you would have you'd understand this Apple case a bit better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't sue mentally challenged people. I had no idea of your condition when I made that threat. I apologise for that and hope you get the help you desperately need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS... come for then anti-abortion goodness, stay for the oligarchy!!!
Re: (Score:2)
[...] we obey the laws where we do business"
Everyone obeys the laws. Obeying the law can be truthfully claimed by everyone. Of course, everyone obeys the laws according to their own interpretation.
Re: (Score:3)
Well done!
Re: (Score:1)
I tries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Eye blame it on dick station and Otto's carrot.
Re: (Score:2)
Amusingly, the affirmative action in college case helps whitey, as you oh so cogently put it, marginally at absolute best, and may even cause marginal harm depending on the specific college in question. Well, except for the fact that it will require less funding to go to remedial classes so there is that.
Who can (Score:1)
Anti-trust laws have little teeth as it is. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
>Apple banning links to other payment platforms from inside their environment is something that does has no significant function except to reduce competition.
"My store, my rules". It's not like they have an actual monopoly, there are non-Apple ecosystems.
And if Apple truly is a dangerous monopoly? Break it up or nationalize the store.
Re:Anti-trust laws have little teeth as it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You missed my point, I think:
If it's just a store whose policies you don't like... don't shop there. If it's actually worthy of anti-trust action... pull the trigger.
Fines for specific line-crossing actions just result in accountants and lawyers doing a better job of covering their asses next time, the fines are never large enough to change the corporate culture even if they temporarily change a specific behaviour.
Re: (Score:3)
You missed my point, I think:
If it's just a store whose policies you don't like... don't shop there. If it's actually worthy of anti-trust action... pull the trigger.
I think I understood the point you were trying to make: Governments should break up or nationalise absolute monopolies and let the markets sort out everything else.
I just think your suggestion that the threshold for antitrust action be limited to absolute monopolies is a poor one, as it would effectively mean the legalisation of any anticompetitive practices that fall short of creating absolute monopolies.
The approach of "If it's just a store whose policies you don't like... don't shop there." has it's p
Re: (Score:3)
If it's just a store whose policies you don't like... don't shop there.
Except Apple won't allow third-party stores, either, so you can't shop somewhere else. I mean, you could spend another thousand bucks on a different phone, but by then, the damage is done.
And no, you can't say, "But consumers know about this, so they should just not buy the iPhone in the first place," because your average consumer doesn't know much more than "My friends say iPhones are better."
That's why antitrust laws and consumer protection laws exist, and that's why what Apple is doing is, IMO, a clear
Re:Anti-trust laws have little teeth as it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course you can. The marketplace is not limited to apps for iThings. Android, for instance, has about 3 times the marketshare of IOS. Apple doesn't have to allow 3rd party apps into their ecosystem in the first place, they could keep it closed and only offer their own apps. There's lots of precedent in the video game world for tightly controlled, closed platforms. Don't like that HP printers only work with their own ink carts, don't buy one. Arguing that it's anti-competitive because a consumer made an ill-informed decision is bullshit.
>what Apple is doing is, IMO, a clear violation of those laws
You'll have to be specific.
Re: (Score:3)
>Except Apple won't allow third-party stores, either, so you can't shop somewhere else.
Of course you can. The marketplace is not limited to apps for iThings. Android, for instance, has about 3 times the marketshare of IOS.
You completely ignored my entire post and posted an solution for people who haven't bought the phone already. That's not the way the law works.
Apple doesn't have to allow 3rd party apps into their ecosystem in the first place, they could keep it closed and only offer their own apps.
Yes, they could, but nobody would buy the phones. The moment they do offer third-party apps, though, they start being governed by a bunch of different parts of antitrust law that would only apply otherwise in very unusual circumstances, such as tying laws.
There's lots of precedent in the video game world for tightly controlled, closed platforms.
That's not the way the law works. You can't automatically say that something is legal just because somebody ha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple allows third party apps, which is not "tying."
No, but requiring in-app purchases to go through a single vendor as a condition of app sale is tying.
Apple does not force customers to purchase one product before they can purchase another. In addition, the article argues "tying arrangements should not be presumptively illegal under antitrust law."
Not presumptively illegal, no. But when you use it to massively inflate the cost of your in-app-purchase billing system to far beyond that of other electronic billing systems, thus effectively monopolizing that entire market for users who have bought your device (more tying), it likely is, because the consumer harm from everyone having to pay Apple's 30% cut instead of paying a more typical 3% cut should be
Re: (Score:2)
3%? 30%? Now we're just haggling over the price. [quoteinvestigator.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And you can still point to no law which you think Apple has broken.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act (background reading [justice.gov]).
Re: (Score:2)
3 strikes, you're out. *plonk*
Re: (Score:2)
Me: Not presumptively illegal, no. But when you use it to massively inflate the cost of your in-app-purchase billing system to far beyond that of other electronic billing systems, thus effectively monopolizing that entire market for users who have bought your device (more tying), it likely is, because the consumer harm from everyone having to pay Apple's 30% cut instead of paying a more typical 3% cut should be plainly obvious to even the most zealous fanboy.
You: And you can still point to no law which you think Apple has broken.
Me: Section 2 of the Sherman Act (background reading [justice.gov]).
You: Again, a fail. This time major. You obviously don't know what "specific" means.
LOL. I'll take "Tell me you don't know anything about antitrust law without telling me you don't know anything about antitrust law for $100, Alex.
Section 2 [westlaw.com] of the Sherman act consists of a single sentence:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fi
Re: (Score:2)
Section 2 [westlaw.com] of the Sherman act consists of a single sentence:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
You cannot usefully get more specific than that.
Also 15 U.S. Code section 14 [cornell.edu]:
"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount fr
Re: (Score:1)
Apple should be broken up in 4 independent companies which would be open to competition with other companies :
- Hardware (iPhone, iMac, VR,...)
- OS
- Software (App store)
- Services (Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Books, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now we're much more likely to see a complete dismantling of what little antitrust regulations remain.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-tying prohibitions were some of what led to the breakup of Bell.
Re: Anti-trust laws have little teeth as it is. (Score:1)
Bell was a government sponsored monopoly which is what antitrust laws should be about. If the government screws with the market, you get monopolies, Apple isnâ(TM)t a monopoly they donâ(TM)t even have the threshold of the majority of the market, Google does in some segments, Microsoft in others and their application overhead is much higher but a lot less tangible.
Re: Anti-trust laws have little teeth as it is. (Score:2)
Monopolies aren't required to run afoul of antitrust laws, nor does being a monopoly automatically mean you've broken any laws.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he was explaining why the GP comment -- which (correctly) claimed that Apple is not a monopoly -- was wrong to conclude that means Apple should be free to commit anti-competitive acts.
The oldest US anti-monopoly law, the Sherman Act, was aimed at monopolies and attempted monopolies. The newer (by 24 years, but still almost 110 years old now) federal antitrust laws, the FTC Act and the Clayton Act, are broader; they prohibit "unfair methods of competition", "unfair or deceptive acts or practices", merge
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to interact with other people, there are laws you need to follow - you can't just unilaterally decide everything. I get that some people like Apple and think they'd be worse off if Apple has to follow the law. But I don't get your reasoning. I'm sure given the choice between
1) Not being able to enforce their payment platform
2) Being broken up
3) Being nationalized
Apple would greatly prefer the first option.
Re: (Score:3)
"My store, my rules". It's not like they have an actual monopoly, there are non-Apple ecosystems.
Being a monopoly or not is completely irrelevant. There's no laws governing or preventing monopolies. And this is by design. Antitrust laws are based on market power and influence, not on some clear definition of "Thou shall not be a monopoly".
Why was this at the 9th Circuit anyway? (Score:2)
If the case is about a California state law, why is it even in federal court?
Hard to know how to feel on this one. (Score:2)
On the one hand, I can't stand Apple I agree they shouldn't be able to stop you from installing apps via a third party app store. By not allowing any other app store, they have a monopoly on software distribution for the iphone. They are the gatekeepers and they can set the price to play via this gate. That seems anti-competitive to me.
On the other hand, Apple users should understand this prior to buying their iphone. This can be looked at as a feature of owning an Apple product. So it's literally what Appl
Re: (Score:2)
By not allowing any other app store, they have a monopoly on software distribution for the iphone. They are the gatekeepers and they can set the price to play via this gate.
Epic is of course frustrated because they want access to Apple users but they don't want to pay Apple's asking price... if you want access to Apple customers, then you have to pay the Apple gatekeeper. The alternative is to not go after those customers.
Depending on how you look at this, both sides of the argument have some weight. I do feel Apple is being anti-competitive with only allowing their App Store on their platform but then again, their platform itself is part of a much wider ecosystem of choice.
I can give Valve a cut to make my product available in Steam, and they manage a bunch of related services including procurement and deployment. Similar to Google Play and Apple iStore.
The difference is that I can instead expend time and effort to make my own service to let people buy and download a Windows EXE (or *nix whatever), provide instructions and a package to sideload onto an Android mobile device, or be stuck without a paddle up the creek for Apple users.
Only with Apple is there no supported workar
Re: (Score:2)
But I hear some Apple users see their one and only one app store as a security feature.
Mind you I disagree but I have heard this line of reasoning. They are signing up for their walled garden. Willingly.