Being a "trust" ain't got nothing to do with nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The laws purpose is to protect the dumb or out of Touch. In this regard Apple gas done nothing to deserve this investigation.
Dave
The purpose of anti-trust laws are to protect the economy and to aid capitalism by fostering competition between actors. Protecting the dumb has no part of the purpose here.
Lawsuits and government investigations, and we pay for it all either through higher taxes or higher prices. It all sucks.
This lawsuit, if it is ever filed, is designed to aid the consumer by fostering competition. That will, if the theory of capitalism is correct, result in a better situation for consumers.
This happens to any company that becomes successful in any market, because competitors that have a hard time competing with you complain to the government instead of trying to compete. Monopolies cannot be had without government providing them. In a free market consumers are in charge of who wins and who loses.
Anti-trust legislation is simply a way for those that can't compete to strike at their competitors with the heavy hand of government.
It doesn't surprise me, however, at the hypocrisy when things like this happen. As someone already stated, if this were to be Microsoft then most of you wouldn't have a problem with it.
The problem is anti-trust laws are no good for anyone, they were not created to stop monopolies like you were taught in school. For a good article on why anti-trust legislation should be eliminated altogether go here http://mises.org/daily/4397
Apple should be able to strike deals with whoever it wants, and so should any other organization. If consumers don't like it they'll find alternatives elsewhere, as long as the market is kept free enough for organizations to provide alternatives without the threat of force being used against them.
Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.
So I gather you thought it was a bad idea for authorities in the US and Europe to go after Microsoft?
Is that all you got? The main threat from Apple was that they would remove the artist off the main headlines on iTunes. Maybe you didn't read it. This does not equal a monopoly. All Apple asked for was equal treatment.
Apple said:
"If you want to sell your item in our store, the only one with the market power sufficient to rack up lots of sales, you may not aid our competitor in their efforts to gain market share."
Sorry. That sounds like an abuse of market power. I don't know if it rises to the status of illegal.
It doesn't matter how careful Apple is. They will get harassed until they pay like everyone else. Apple is not paying enough.
This is ridiculous. You are equating lobbying with corruption, and essentially arguing that if Apple doesn't pay "protection" to the government that they will be shaken down as if the government was Al Capone or something.
"anantksundaram" is totally right in that this is something that "comes with bigness," but the government, especially the DoJ, doesn't investigate companies on a whim, nor does it investigate the companies the White House tells it to, nor does it investigate companies that don't "pay up." As with most criminal complaints, it investigates at the behest of a complainant that makes a case against the company in question and raises possible legal issues that require an investigation to solve.
If this investigation is, as AppleInsider notes, mostly about whether or not they screwed over Amazon, then you can bet that Amazon initiated the complaint with the DoJ.
The sad thing about "being big" is that every other company will use whatever means to take a pot shot at you. All the patent suits, all the complaints, all the investigations, are because Apple is "big," but also because Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and a host of other companies are using their legal teams to try to slow down Apple's progress. It happens all the time.
and if you must know, i feel exactly the same about medicaid and social security. they are complete disasters (i work in the medical field). however, although some sort of safety net is a necessary evil, it is a FAR cry from the kind of control obama is exerting on so much of the economy.
Ok. So what exactly is your proposal? Or are you one of those Faux News people who just bitch about everything and offer up nothing in terms of how to "fix" all those things they deem as wrong.
What they should be looking at here is a) Amazon's ability to leverage it's power as a retailer at the expense of a competitor and b) the recording industry's attempts to manipulate the marketplace by favoring specific retailers.
I can't imagine that those aspects will be neglected in the inquiry. They are background facts.
However, I can't see that either of those are illegal.
Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.
The whole intent of anti-trust laws is to put consumers in charge.
Without meaningful competition in the relevant market, the corporation is in charge. That is the whole point.
Antitrust laws use the power of government to aid consumers. Government keeps the markets free of anti-competitive behavior by corporations who are in a position to employ those tactics.
"If you want to sell your item in our store, the only one with the market power sufficient to rack up lots of sales, you may not aid our competitor in their efforts to gain market share."
Sorry. That sounds like an abuse of market power. I don't know if it rises to the status of illegal.
Sorry, but I think what's been reported is this: the DoJ is reportedly looking at Apple for asking the labels to not participate in Amazon's promotion, and its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first.
AFAIK they weren't refusing to sell, only promote ... big difference.
The whole intent of anti-trust laws is to put consumers in charge.
Without meaningful competition in the relevant market, the corporation is in charge. That is the whole point.
Antitrust laws use the power of government to aid consumers. Government keeps the markets free of anti-competitive behavior by corporations who are in a position to employ those tactics.
And we, the consumers, elect the government.
A minor (but I think important) clarification: Antitrust laws were not created to protect consumers. In the U.S. at least, they were created in an era before the word "consumer" was even used. They were designed to protect and encourage competition in markets. When for instance the government sued Standard Oil over their anticompetitive practices, the concern was not for how much consumers were paying for petroleum products (which was actually quite low), but for they way SO used their vertically and horizontally integrated business to muscle competitors out of their market.
Now, in the end of course the benefits of competitive markets should accrue to consumers, but that's not the driving force behind the laws. They are first and foremost about fostering a competitive business environment.
It looks an awful lot like collusion between Amazon and the recording industry to cement their respective positions and control.
They can't collude, by definition, since they are not in the same market. If the recording industry conspired together to fix prices, then that would be a cartel, which is illegal under the antitrust laws.
lolz. If this was Microsoft under exactly the same situation, people would be having a field day about how they deserved it. Strangely, using your market leading position to prevent innovation/competition from other companies is bad.
I just wish Amazon would get international stores working.
If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, you could do better than prefacing them with lolz.
I would argue that Apple is well within its rights to try and prevent exclusive deals with other retailers. Apple does not have a 70% position in the retail market for music, it has a 26% position. Separating online/offline sales is not logical.
Normally I would root for the underdog or the industry being underserved, but here we're talking about music executives. These music companies are the ones who failed to innovate and had to rely on Apple to sell their music. These are the same guys who sat on the same model for over 4-6 decades and did not change their business one bit.
As for competitors to Apple in the retail business, I would encourage them to participate. Apple created the online music business. If someone else decides to compete, it needs to know that the battle is going to be hard. You can't use the DoJ as your hired muscle to get a leg up in your business, which is what most people appear to be doing.
The music labels are still losing money, less with iTMS obviously but not a savior as they were likely led to believe.
Apple likely isn't providing detailed information on users music via iTunes to the RIAA for prosecution and supporting the lawyers through suits against the customers.
So the RIAA is trying to make Apple's life a bit uncomfortable and reduce their large market share of on line sales is my guess.
Because it appears that they might be using their market power to disadvantage YOU, the consumer.
Uh no, in the music biz, Apple was the one pushing for lower, uniform prices. Then they had to bend over for the music guys eventually and offer tiered pricing.
As far as I know, getting the song exclusively from Amazon is AGAINST my interests. I would like it to be in many stores at the same time. It is also true that if a song is NOT promoted in iTunes, but still available to sell, it DOES NOT go against my interests.
I think you have an understanding of anti-competitive practices that ranges from completely bogus to somewhat naive. Two points to remember:
1> None of what is talked about affects the consumer. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I don't want exclusive deals. If, in fact, Apple was the one pushing for exclusive deals at the expense of Amazon, then we have a case.
2> Apple wasn't refusing to sell the music. That is a key point. So they won't put it front and center in the store. So?
What we have here is more visible activity on the part of our Socialist President and his minions to distract from the fact that all they want is everything...total control of you and everything you do...in your own best interest of course (to quote Karl Marx).
Think! Could the government possibly have more pressing issues to contend with? Why, then, pick on this one if not as a distraction from their true agenda?
There are very, very few things the Constitution allows the government to do. These it has done very poorly. What do you do when everything you do comes out wrong, and worse, the people start to find out about it? You generate furious activity in all other areas.
Comments
Haveing 24% of the market is not a trust.
Being a "trust" ain't got nothing to do with nothing.
The laws purpose is to protect the dumb or out of Touch. In this regard Apple gas done nothing to deserve this investigation.
Dave
The purpose of anti-trust laws are to protect the economy and to aid capitalism by fostering competition between actors. Protecting the dumb has no part of the purpose here.
Lawsuits and government investigations, and we pay for it all either through higher taxes or higher prices. It all sucks.
This lawsuit, if it is ever filed, is designed to aid the consumer by fostering competition. That will, if the theory of capitalism is correct, result in a better situation for consumers.
Apple should j
threaten to relocate to the Caymans or another Tax haven to avoid paying any taxation in the US and tell the government to go f*ck themselves.
Excuse me. You are putting the interests of a CE company (whose products you like) above the interests of our country?
What the heck? Where do your loyalties lie? "I don't care what happens to this country - so long as I can buy an iPod cheap!"
This happens to any company that becomes successful in any market, because competitors that have a hard time competing with you complain to the government instead of trying to compete. Monopolies cannot be had without government providing them. In a free market consumers are in charge of who wins and who loses.
Anti-trust legislation is simply a way for those that can't compete to strike at their competitors with the heavy hand of government.
It doesn't surprise me, however, at the hypocrisy when things like this happen. As someone already stated, if this were to be Microsoft then most of you wouldn't have a problem with it.
The problem is anti-trust laws are no good for anyone, they were not created to stop monopolies like you were taught in school. For a good article on why anti-trust legislation should be eliminated altogether go here http://mises.org/daily/4397
Apple should be able to strike deals with whoever it wants, and so should any other organization. If consumers don't like it they'll find alternatives elsewhere, as long as the market is kept free enough for organizations to provide alternatives without the threat of force being used against them.
Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.
So I gather you thought it was a bad idea for authorities in the US and Europe to go after Microsoft?
Is that all you got? The main threat from Apple was that they would remove the artist off the main headlines on iTunes. Maybe you didn't read it. This does not equal a monopoly. All Apple asked for was equal treatment.
Apple said:
"If you want to sell your item in our store, the only one with the market power sufficient to rack up lots of sales, you may not aid our competitor in their efforts to gain market share."
Sorry. That sounds like an abuse of market power. I don't know if it rises to the status of illegal.
Why the Fk investigating Apple,
Because it appears that they might be using their market power to disadvantage YOU, the consumer.
Haveing 24% of the market is not a trust.
The 68% of the online market is the dominant position about which the DoJ is inquiring.
It doesn't matter how careful Apple is. They will get harassed until they pay like everyone else. Apple is not paying enough.
This is ridiculous. You are equating lobbying with corruption, and essentially arguing that if Apple doesn't pay "protection" to the government that they will be shaken down as if the government was Al Capone or something.
"anantksundaram" is totally right in that this is something that "comes with bigness," but the government, especially the DoJ, doesn't investigate companies on a whim, nor does it investigate the companies the White House tells it to, nor does it investigate companies that don't "pay up." As with most criminal complaints, it investigates at the behest of a complainant that makes a case against the company in question and raises possible legal issues that require an investigation to solve.
If this investigation is, as AppleInsider notes, mostly about whether or not they screwed over Amazon, then you can bet that Amazon initiated the complaint with the DoJ.
The sad thing about "being big" is that every other company will use whatever means to take a pot shot at you. All the patent suits, all the complaints, all the investigations, are because Apple is "big," but also because Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and a host of other companies are using their legal teams to try to slow down Apple's progress. It happens all the time.
and if you must know, i feel exactly the same about medicaid and social security. they are complete disasters (i work in the medical field). however, although some sort of safety net is a necessary evil, it is a FAR cry from the kind of control obama is exerting on so much of the economy.
Ok. So what exactly is your proposal? Or are you one of those Faux News people who just bitch about everything and offer up nothing in terms of how to "fix" all those things they deem as wrong.
What they should be looking at here is a) Amazon's ability to leverage it's power as a retailer at the expense of a competitor and b) the recording industry's attempts to manipulate the marketplace by favoring specific retailers.
I can't imagine that those aspects will be neglected in the inquiry. They are background facts.
However, I can't see that either of those are illegal.
Consumers should be in charge, not government, not corporations.
The whole intent of anti-trust laws is to put consumers in charge.
Without meaningful competition in the relevant market, the corporation is in charge. That is the whole point.
Antitrust laws use the power of government to aid consumers. Government keeps the markets free of anti-competitive behavior by corporations who are in a position to employ those tactics.
And we, the consumers, elect the government.
Apple said:
"If you want to sell your item in our store, the only one with the market power sufficient to rack up lots of sales, you may not aid our competitor in their efforts to gain market share."
Sorry. That sounds like an abuse of market power. I don't know if it rises to the status of illegal.
Sorry, but I think what's been reported is this: the DoJ is reportedly looking at Apple for asking the labels to not participate in Amazon's promotion, and its refusing to provide marketing support for songs that were provided to Amazon first.
AFAIK they weren't refusing to sell, only promote ... big difference.
I can't imagine that those aspects will be neglected in the inquiry. They are background facts.
However, I can't see that either of those are illegal.
It looks an awful lot like collusion between Amazon and the recording industry to cement their respective positions and control.
The whole intent of anti-trust laws is to put consumers in charge.
Without meaningful competition in the relevant market, the corporation is in charge. That is the whole point.
Antitrust laws use the power of government to aid consumers. Government keeps the markets free of anti-competitive behavior by corporations who are in a position to employ those tactics.
And we, the consumers, elect the government.
A minor (but I think important) clarification: Antitrust laws were not created to protect consumers. In the U.S. at least, they were created in an era before the word "consumer" was even used. They were designed to protect and encourage competition in markets. When for instance the government sued Standard Oil over their anticompetitive practices, the concern was not for how much consumers were paying for petroleum products (which was actually quite low), but for they way SO used their vertically and horizontally integrated business to muscle competitors out of their market.
Now, in the end of course the benefits of competitive markets should accrue to consumers, but that's not the driving force behind the laws. They are first and foremost about fostering a competitive business environment.
It looks an awful lot like collusion between Amazon and the recording industry to cement their respective positions and control.
They can't collude, by definition, since they are not in the same market. If the recording industry conspired together to fix prices, then that would be a cartel, which is illegal under the antitrust laws.
what bull$hit. apple builds a successful business (being one of the very few companies with self-imposed integrity)...
Successful? Absolutely. "Self-imposed integrity"? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
seriously, who in their right mind votes for democrats?
Apparently your beloved Steve Jobs. You did know that Al Gore is on the Apple BoD, no?
lolz. If this was Microsoft under exactly the same situation, people would be having a field day about how they deserved it. Strangely, using your market leading position to prevent innovation/competition from other companies is bad.
I just wish Amazon would get international stores working.
If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, you could do better than prefacing them with lolz.
I would argue that Apple is well within its rights to try and prevent exclusive deals with other retailers. Apple does not have a 70% position in the retail market for music, it has a 26% position. Separating online/offline sales is not logical.
Normally I would root for the underdog or the industry being underserved, but here we're talking about music executives. These music companies are the ones who failed to innovate and had to rely on Apple to sell their music. These are the same guys who sat on the same model for over 4-6 decades and did not change their business one bit.
As for competitors to Apple in the retail business, I would encourage them to participate. Apple created the online music business. If someone else decides to compete, it needs to know that the battle is going to be hard. You can't use the DoJ as your hired muscle to get a leg up in your business, which is what most people appear to be doing.
"US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music"
How about the DoJ investigate record labels for price-fixing music CDs for the past 30 years and leave Apple alone?
When Obama was elected he placed a LOT of RIAA lawyers in the DOJ.
Obama's bread is buttered from the media/porn/liberal Left. Not the oil/business/conservative Right.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/200...ama-taps-fift/
The music labels are still losing money, less with iTMS obviously but not a savior as they were likely led to believe.
Apple likely isn't providing detailed information on users music via iTunes to the RIAA for prosecution and supporting the lawyers through suits against the customers.
So the RIAA is trying to make Apple's life a bit uncomfortable and reduce their large market share of on line sales is my guess.
Because it appears that they might be using their market power to disadvantage YOU, the consumer.
Uh no, in the music biz, Apple was the one pushing for lower, uniform prices. Then they had to bend over for the music guys eventually and offer tiered pricing.
As far as I know, getting the song exclusively from Amazon is AGAINST my interests. I would like it to be in many stores at the same time. It is also true that if a song is NOT promoted in iTunes, but still available to sell, it DOES NOT go against my interests.
I think you have an understanding of anti-competitive practices that ranges from completely bogus to somewhat naive. Two points to remember:
1> None of what is talked about affects the consumer. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I don't want exclusive deals. If, in fact, Apple was the one pushing for exclusive deals at the expense of Amazon, then we have a case.
2> Apple wasn't refusing to sell the music. That is a key point. So they won't put it front and center in the store. So?
Think! Could the government possibly have more pressing issues to contend with? Why, then, pick on this one if not as a distraction from their true agenda?
There are very, very few things the Constitution allows the government to do. These it has done very poorly. What do you do when everything you do comes out wrong, and worse, the people start to find out about it? You generate furious activity in all other areas.