House Judiciary advances all bills in sweeping antitrust legislative package
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee has approved all six pieces of legislation in a sweeping antitrust package targeting Big Tech, advancing the bills to the full House of Representatives.
Credit: WikiMedia Commons
On Thursday, the committee narrowly advanced the sixth and final bill, the Ending Platform Monopolies Act, in a 21-20 vote. The proposal would bar technology companies from selling products on a platform they control, such as Amazon selling first-party goods on its own marketplace.
In the span of nearly 29 hours, the House Judiciary Committee debated and approved all six bills introduced in an antitrust package earlier in June. Support for the bills has been bipartisan, and votes were not along party lines.
Some of the other bills in the package include the Platform Competition and Opportunity Act, which would ban tech giants from acquiring rising rivals, and the Augmenting Compatibility and Competition bill, which would make it easier for consumers to port their data from one platform to another.
Two other bills approved on Wednesday would increase the budget of the U.S.'s top antitrust enforcement agencies and allow antitrust cases brought by state attorneys general to be kept in a court of their choosing.
The approval of the bills by the panel now means that they're up for a vote before the full House of Representatives.
Apple has voiced opposition to the legislative package, claiming that they'd harm consumers and stifle innovation. Apple CEO Tim Cook also personally called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers in an attempt to sway opinion against the bills.
Keep up with everything Apple in the weekly AppleInsider Podcast -- and get a fast news update from AppleInsider Daily. Just say, "Hey, Siri," to your HomePod mini and ask for these podcasts, and our latest HomeKit Insider episode too.If you want an ad-free main AppleInsider Podcast experience, you can support the AppleInsider podcast by subscribing for $5 per month through Apple's Podcasts app, or via Patreon if you prefer any other podcast player.
Credit: WikiMedia Commons
On Thursday, the committee narrowly advanced the sixth and final bill, the Ending Platform Monopolies Act, in a 21-20 vote. The proposal would bar technology companies from selling products on a platform they control, such as Amazon selling first-party goods on its own marketplace.
In the span of nearly 29 hours, the House Judiciary Committee debated and approved all six bills introduced in an antitrust package earlier in June. Support for the bills has been bipartisan, and votes were not along party lines.
Some of the other bills in the package include the Platform Competition and Opportunity Act, which would ban tech giants from acquiring rising rivals, and the Augmenting Compatibility and Competition bill, which would make it easier for consumers to port their data from one platform to another.
Two other bills approved on Wednesday would increase the budget of the U.S.'s top antitrust enforcement agencies and allow antitrust cases brought by state attorneys general to be kept in a court of their choosing.
The approval of the bills by the panel now means that they're up for a vote before the full House of Representatives.
Apple has voiced opposition to the legislative package, claiming that they'd harm consumers and stifle innovation. Apple CEO Tim Cook also personally called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other lawmakers in an attempt to sway opinion against the bills.
Keep up with everything Apple in the weekly AppleInsider Podcast -- and get a fast news update from AppleInsider Daily. Just say, "Hey, Siri," to your HomePod mini and ask for these podcasts, and our latest HomeKit Insider episode too.If you want an ad-free main AppleInsider Podcast experience, you can support the AppleInsider podcast by subscribing for $5 per month through Apple's Podcasts app, or via Patreon if you prefer any other podcast player.
Comments
Secondly, barring a tech company from selling wares on their own platform is incredibly silly and likely wouldn’t survive either. And I question whether the gov’t could prove a compelling public interest to force private companies to change their viable and otherwise legal business model.
Personally I will stick with the App Store, but the trending on this is not favorable to Apple and they better realize this.
If Apple or anyone else's platform is deemed to be a monopoly or impacting competition negatively, even current legislation in most countries will prevent the seller of wares from selling them on its own platform.
That's why, in many countries, the company responsible for developing and maintaining rail infrastructure cannot run services that run on it. The same applies to electricity generation and distribution vs commercialisation. Even in telecom infrastructure, many countries require companies to share infrastructure with each other to avoid duplicity etc. All regulated by government and ultimately, in the name of competition and benefitting the consumer.
What we have has actually produced amazingly and worked out quite well. For example the smartphone market is competitive and offers two distinct choices. This competition has advanced smartphone and new peripheral technology incredibly. Comms, computing, various services,general internet access, health, its incredible in just a handful of years what we have. So let’s screw with that, really?
That's fine, with a level playing field, but it isn't level, is it?
More and more investigations are highlighting the harm done by monopolistic and anti-competitive behaviour.
It seems you're ok with that, as long as it's the US that comes out on top.
Don't expect any other country to agree with you.
Your understanding of 'stealing' is a little off. The US had a history of stealing technologies. You could even argue it was built on 'stealing'.
I don't see how China can buy your tech companies and export your engineering, either.
Take a look a patent applications from US companies. A huge amount have Chinese names tied to them as many were actually from China. Students that went to the US to study and were picked up by US companies. Others were 'imported' directly from abroad. They represent a sizeable chunk drawn by salaries and investigative opportunities.
Again, it seems that's fine with you, as long as the US comes out on top.
I have no issue with that. You have US interests at heart but perhaps those interests are blinding you to reality.
Time is up for the US at the top of the technology hill. That is beyond doubt.
Other nations are catching up (or are already ahead) and can offer great opportunities to candidates in engineering and science.
The world has changed and, as nations push for technological independence, the influence of US technology companies will wane.
But none of that is really relevant here. No company should be allowed to shape the future using its dominant position and worse, abusing it.
Better protections are required as the current legislative situation is partly to blame for the current predicament.
The issues that need to be addressed are the arbitrary and inequitable nature of suppression of speech on social media platforms, given the protections the Section 230 law provides them. Either publish everything and continue to enjoy the protection, or strike down 230 and then they can do what they want... within the law.
Apple should be heralded as the most innovative company hit this planet in decades, with products and services people desire - thus their tremendous success and customer satisfaction rankings. If people were "abused," they would look for alternatives. Windows Phone failed because Microsoft could NOT convince users to switch to their ecosystem. Others have come and gone as well. Android in all its flavors and device manufacturers are there too...
It really is lunacy to consider harming Apple's business just because they are successful.
Ultimately user engagement is the market (wow much time, usefulness, and positivity a user gains from spending time with an ecosystem). And for that, there are plenty of competitive forces that Apple must deliver against.
So no, the only smackdown should be the heads of dopey politicians who only look at high company valuation as bad and onerous, without having the capacity to consider the broader market and consumer desire. People buy Apps because they WANT the ecosystem, stability, security, and interoperability they can provide.
Let someone else go and build a better mousetrap. There are lots of companies with deep pockets out there. Go do it.
Did I mention Microsoft???
Just saw a video that says 2/3 of Congress took big pharma money in 2020. Legal brides? What is Congress doing about this? Absolutely nothing! When I look at the attacks on Apple and others someone is lobbying for this, it doesn't just happen out of the goodness of a Congressional member's heart, someone is paying them. I think we need a non-Congressional investigation into lobbying, where this money is actually coming from (US, overseas?), and which bills are being pushed--or not pushed--by every member of Congress. It would be naive to think every decision in Congress has to do with actual laws, which many times were enacted by bribes in the first place. Anyone who thinks our government is totally honest and looks out for the best interest of all the people needs to have their head examined.