US DoJ looking at Apple's iTunes for antitrust issues in music

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 105
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    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.



    I do not need any more when you obviously cannot grasp what was said in the first place. or didnt read it.



    But carry on and play, its entertaining.
  • Reply 102 of 105
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Always a lot of confusion over the basic concepts when it comes to antitrust. It's not about monopoly, a state which rarely exists. If Apple has market power in a defined market (not a proven fact, but possible), and if they use that market power to disadvantage competitors (also not proven, but possible), then they may have violated the antitrust laws. In this case, if it can be shown that they have penalized a record label for dealing with a competitor then they might be in for a hearty hand-slap and a stern warning not to do it again. Again, if, if, if.



    Always a lot of confusion when posters show a complete inability to comprehend what others are posting. In your case, reading would get in the way of ranting.
  • Reply 103 of 105
    cycomikocycomiko Posts: 716member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mobility View Post


    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.



    What is is about people here and reading? or is it a comprehension thing?



    Next time, I will run my posts past my kid, just to make sure posters can understand.
  • Reply 104 of 105
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    Always a lot of confusion when posters show a complete inability to comprehend what others are posting. In your case, reading would get in the way of ranting.



    Ha-ha, nice one. And the point you've made here is...?
  • Reply 105 of 105
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Stevie View Post


    And of those very few, the authors chose to include "to regulate Commerce (SIC)". Article I, Section 8, Clause 3



    Sounds like the government is taking its Constitutional duties very seriously.



    You also forgot to mention Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18



    ?\tThe Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."



    also known as the "necessary and proper clause".



    So depending on how one reads the clause, the government can do a lot of things, unless Sky King wants to selectively ignore portions of the Constitution.
Sign In or Register to comment.