French reseller sues Apple over unfair competition - Page 3

Originally Posted by mortarman

While I have no knowledge of French law regarding competition, if the allegations brought by the litigant are factual then it would certainly seem that Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior, at least by the standards in the US. My guess would be the playing field has been level all along and the company has simply been dealing with the very same supply constraints that everyone else has had to deal with, including Apple itself.

In case most folks haven't noticed, they have some pretty smart folks running Apple who would certainly know they were laying themselves open to accusations of anti-competitive behavior if the alleged conduct is factual.

If this business sought to engage Apple in head-to-head competition in the retail space, regardless of how long it had been the incumbent prior to an upstart Apple entering the space, then it should expect to have to deal with all the implications of such a decision. If you want to face the bull sometimes you're going to get the horns.

My first question to the business would be, "how have you differentiated yourself from Apple retail to drive business to you, rather than to Apple's stores"?

Here in Vermont we have a very successful Apple re-seller, Small Dog Electronics (with which I have zero affiliation). One of the reasons they're successful is they serve a market that has no other Apple retail presence outside the big box stores, and they've got a very local attitude that works for the target market. They also happen to have gotten started in 1994 at the advent of Apple's dark days, yet still built a very successful on-line business that preceded their physical retail business.

While I'm not a complete fan (I think their repair service leaves a lot to be desired), they nevertheless laid out a business plan that works, and they've been successful. Although that success is, in part, driven by a local culture that very much is supportive of buying local to support local businesses, they are also in an underserved market that faces the choice of going to a big box, ordering on-line, or driving to the nearest Apple Store ~200 miles away.

If you can't compete don't blame the competition.

Originally Posted by battlehamster

I have been on several occasions incorporation and general counsel and I am an attorney.. not trying to be pedantic. I have incorporated high-tech companies with structural protections to shield BOD's in a limited capacity from shareholders who might be demanding profit over other goals, particularly when the founders had concerns about that eventuality. I am not addressing what I think companies should be obligated to do one way or another. As for motivation... I think its easy to draw lines but really what companies are interested in ultimately is survival in my experience. Whether or not they choose a correct evolutionary path towards that goal or just hit an eventual developmental dead-end is often difficult to assess except in hindsight. From what I have observed... it is often the minute goals of the BOD and shareholder that give the aggregate appearance of profit motivation as the factors for survival share much commonality with making profit. That is not to say that worker safety or other concerns have no correlation with survival of the company but it is often harder for a BOD to quantify and assess that quality.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

eBizcuss, the largest Apple reseller in France, has sued Apple alleging that the company competes unfairly by favoring its own retail stores with new product inventory and by undercutting proposals to small businesses."