Department of Justice could file an antitrust lawsuit against Apple as soon as March

AppleInsider

After more than four years of investigations, the Department of Justice is preparing to sue Apple for alleged anticompetitive behavior, potentially in the next few months.

Apple Fifth Avenue

Allegedly, the Justice Department is looking to file the lawsuit in the first quarter of the year, potentially in March, sources told Bloomberg. However, the timing could slip as the DOJ's most senior antitrust officials haven't yet signed off on the complaint.

In 2019, the saga kicked off when the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee requested information from Spotify regarding Apple's alleged anticompetitive behavior and how it affected Spotify's business. Spotify accused Apple of giving themselves unfair advantages at every opportunity.

In June 2020, members of the DoJ and a coalition of state attorneys general had discussions with several companies that accused Apple of engaging in anticompetitive behavior.

In 2021, the Department of Justice looked into Apple's treatment of Roblox developers. The complaint was similar to Epic's, which involved Apple's commission on in-app purchases and the inability to create a third-party App Store.

In August 2022, sources indicated that the Department of Justice was about to take action on a complaint from Tile, a tracker manufacturer.




Read on AppleInsider

thrang

In so many of the attempts to take down successful companies, there seems to be an utter mess of equating the large success of a company with squelching small competitors. Or that designing the products and services they sell to maximize their own revenue is "wring" or "anti-completive."

The nature of free market participation is to bo better than your competitors, to "beat" them in fact. How you do that is of course important, but simply entering a market (AirTag for example) which puts competitive pressure on Tile, is well perfectly legal. And tough cookies for Tile unless they can innovate and compete differently.

Now if Apple clearly stole patented technology, coerced supply chain to restrict  components to a competitor, or put pressure on distribution or retail channels to NOT sell Tile, that would be clear example of offensive and unfair behavior. I've not heard of that in really any of these claims at least as publicized.

 Similar with Sonos. Apple has produced audio products for many years, including speakers (apple HiFi). Regardless, they have the right to enter that market without restriction. and leverage their technology. They further opened Airplay 2 technology for companies to license if they wish (Sonos did), but, for quite reasonable privacy reasons, not Siri. Is that an issue? I can't see how. Apple is not "compelled" to license any and all of its technologies just to appease competitors.

 It's for the for the marketplace to decide whether Apple's approach is too restrictive and buy into other ecosystems instead. And given the size of Apple's user based, there are effectively zero complaints - in fact custsat numbers are generally extremely high.

Apple's business is its ecosystem - their success is because of who they can add overlapping circles on their ever expanding Venn diagram generally with great success for them and great appreciation by its customers.

So yes, really a great model to go after. Governments do so little right it is deeply saddening.... 

mknelson

It's interesting that none of these investigations look at Apple's anti-competitive behaviour against their own reseller partners. Business discounts, stock availability, CTO ETAs, education pricing all designed to steer customers to their own stores.

mark fearing

mknelson said:

It's interesting that none of these investigations look at Apple's anti-competitive behaviour against their own reseller partners. Business discounts, stock availability, CTO ETAs, education pricing all designed to steer customers to their own stores.

anti competitive behavior in itself is not illegal. just ask why target doesn't carry Walmart brands, or gives larger discounts to their internal brands, or charges more for shelf fees the larger the company is. People need to stop thinking the market place is some magic level field. the only case forgot. involvement is in a monopoly. apple is only a monopoly with their own product. why can't multiple companies have x-box stores?

mikethemartian

thrang said:

In so many of the attempts to take down successful companies, there seems to be an utter mess of equating the large success of a company with squelching small competitors. Or that designing the products and services they sell to maximize their own revenue is "wring" or "anti-completive."

The nature of free market participation is to bo better than your competitors, to "beat" them in fact. How you do that is of course important, but simply entering a market (AirTag for example) which puts competitive pressure on Tile, is well perfectly legal. And tough cookies for Tile unless they can innovate and compete differently.

Now if Apple clearly stole patented technology, coerced supply chain to restrict  components to a competitor, or put pressure on distribution or retail channels to NOT sell Tile, that would be clear example of offensive and unfair behavior. I've not heard of that in really any of these claims at least as publicized.

 Similar with Sonos. Apple has produced audio products for many years, including speakers (apple HiFi). Regardless, they have the right to enter that market without restriction. and leverage their technology. They further opened Airplay 2 technology for companies to license if they wish (Sonos did), but, for quite reasonable privacy reasons, not Siri. Is that an issue? I can't see how. Apple is not "compelled" to license any and all of its technologies just to appease competitors.

 It's for the for the marketplace to decide whether Apple's approach is too restrictive and buy into other ecosystems instead. And given the size of Apple's user based, there are effectively zero complaints - in fact custsat numbers are generally extremely high.

Apple's business is its ecosystem - their success is because of who they can add overlapping circles on their ever expanding Venn diagram generally with great success for them and great appreciation by its customers.

So yes, really a great model to go after. Governments do so little right it is deeply saddening.... 

IBM was forced to open its platform to competitors. AT&T was forced to provide all their patents after 1947, including for the invention of the first transistor,  royally free to all American companies.

thrang

mikethemartian said:

thrang said:

In so many of the attempts to take down successful companies, there seems to be an utter mess of equating the large success of a company with squelching small competitors. Or that designing the products and services they sell to maximize their own revenue is "wring" or "anti-completive."

The nature of free market participation is to bo better than your competitors, to "beat" them in fact. How you do that is of course important, but simply entering a market (AirTag for example) which puts competitive pressure on Tile, is well perfectly legal. And tough cookies for Tile unless they can innovate and compete differently.

Now if Apple clearly stole patented technology, coerced supply chain to restrict  components to a competitor, or put pressure on distribution or retail channels to NOT sell Tile, that would be clear example of offensive and unfair behavior. I've not heard of that in really any of these claims at least as publicized.

 Similar with Sonos. Apple has produced audio products for many years, including speakers (apple HiFi). Regardless, they have the right to enter that market without restriction. and leverage their technology. They further opened Airplay 2 technology for companies to license if they wish (Sonos did), but, for quite reasonable privacy reasons, not Siri. Is that an issue? I can't see how. Apple is not "compelled" to license any and all of its technologies just to appease competitors.

 It's for the for the marketplace to decide whether Apple's approach is too restrictive and buy into other ecosystems instead. And given the size of Apple's user based, there are effectively zero complaints - in fact custsat numbers are generally extremely high.

Apple's business is its ecosystem - their success is because of who they can add overlapping circles on their ever expanding Venn diagram generally with great success for them and great appreciation by its customers.

So yes, really a great model to go after. Governments do so little right it is deeply saddening.... 

IBM was forced to open its platform to competitors. AT&T was forced to provide all their patents after 1947, including for the invention of the first transistor,  royally free to all American companies.

Apple is not AT&T by any stretch of definition, and the issue for AT&T was vastly different than Apple's (more in fact to why I posited in my original post about what might constitute oppressive behavior). Not sure what you are talking about with IBM if you care to elaborate.
 
Apple devices are not exclusive to the overall market, and there are dozens or hundreds of other non-Apple manufacturers you can choose from. I've not yet seen Apple accused of being coercive or oppressive to individuals and competitors to dissuade, make difficult or costly, or otherwise impede anyone from choosing to buy elsewhere.

Any manufacturer should have exclusive control over its products! That's what enables them to differentiate themselves in the market. And when it comes to App Store conversations (third party stores/sideloading etc.) you are effectively saying to Nordstrom's or Macy's "you need to allow me to set up my little shop in your store and ring my own register, for products I bring in, because I want to access the customers that come in your doors..." Eff that. That's socialism, at the least...

humbug1873

So as a stock holder who doesn't have to (and certainly don't want to) live in the US there seems to be only one solution: Trump for president. (Tim Cook could at least handle that orange idiot better)

madbum

So it appears Biden Justice department is good at 2 things, I take no joy because I voted for a Biden as an independent in 2020 and I regret it. 

1. They are good at protecting the interest of other countries like the EU and trying to destroy American companies like Apple and Google. When do you ever see EU go after Airbus or BMW? They protect their own.

2. Biden DOJ is also good at going after his top political opponent  who is kicking his ass in the polls. That is what third world banana republics do. Let the people vote and decide.?

That said, I don’t know if I will vote for Trump because I am more of a globalist but I know for sure I will never , ever vote for Joe Biden 

allm

Madbum said:

So it appears Biden Justice department is good at 2 things, I take no joy because I voted for a Biden as an independent in 2020 and I regret it. 

1. They are good at protecting the interest of other countries like the EU and trying to destroy American companies like Apple and Google. When do you ever see EU go after Airbus or BMW? They protect their own.

2. Biden DOJ is also good at going after his top political opponent  who is kicking his ass in the polls. That is what third world banana republics do. Let the people vote and decide.?

That said, I don’t know if I will vote for Trump because I am more of a globalist but I know for sure I will never , ever vote for Joe Biden 

Well, even Joe Biden wouldn't vote for Joe Biden anymore.

edited January 2024

madbum

AllM said:

Madbum said:

So it appears Biden Justice department is good at 2 things, I take no joy because I voted for a Biden as an independent in 2020 and I regret it. 

1. They are good at protecting the interest of other countries like the EU and trying to destroy American companies like Apple and Google. When do you ever see EU go after Airbus or BMW? They protect their own.

2. Biden DOJ is also good at going after his top political opponent  who is kicking his ass in the polls. That is what third world banana republics do. Let the people vote and decide.?

That said, I don’t know if I will vote for Trump because I am more of a globalist but I know for sure I will never , ever vote for Joe Biden 

Well, even Joe Biden wouldn't vote for Joe Biden anymore.

😇👏