Now Our current DOJ is taking the side of EPIC, a company that is 49 percent Chinese owned against Apple, a great American company who is doing so much to better people lives with health features on watch, crash detection and satellite sos .
Government go to hell, taking side of the Chinese! What is wrong with this government?
The court only see’s the face the CEO of Epic, it’s like calling Tesla cars green up front when behind the scenes most of the power comes from a gas/oil power plants on the poor side of town.
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
Unbelievable. Way out of line.
I believe their issue is that the case Epic presented hinged on whether or not Apple is a monopoly and the ruling set a precedent that effects cases the DOJ is working on, including Apple and Google. So, the ruling in this case steps outside of the civil area into the federal statutes. Apple welcomes it because it allows them to directly address any concerns the DOJ has without having to deal with another case from them. Especially since their case was like started because of complaints from Epic and Spotify. Two companies heavily invested in by Tencent, a Chinese conglomerate.
In the time it took for you to type out that post you could have done a 10-second search and discovered... Yes Epic also sued Google.
But Epic lawsuit against Google is now for different anti-competitive reasons. At first Epic also sued Google for being anti-competitive with regards to being monopolistic with their Play Store, when Fortnight was ejected from the Play Store for policy violations. Epic initial claim was that since Google Play Store control over 90% of the app downloads, it was essentially a "monopoly". But they amended the lawsuit, probably because it's tough to prove a monopoly, when Epic once took advantage of side loading Fortnight on Android. Thus avoiding the Play Store and Google's commission. Unlike the Apple App Store, there was no reason (except to make more profit) why Epic had to have Fortnight in the Play Store.
They are now suing Google for anti-completive behavior by claiming that Google stood in their way when they wanted to make Fortnight available in the Samsung Galaxy Store, on Samsung Android phones. This amended lawsuit was meant to support 3 dozen States investigating Google for anti-completive behavior, claiming that Google used anti-competivie tactics to keep other apps stores from opening on Android phones. Investigations I'm sure that was brought about by the lobbying effort of the Coalition of App Fairness.
In the time it took for you to type out that post you could have done a 10-second search and discovered... Yes Epic also sued Google.
But Epic lawsuit against Google is now for different anti-competitive reasons. At first Epic also sued Google for being anti-competitive with regards to being monopolistic with their Play Store, when Fortnight was ejected from the Play Store for policy violations. Epic initial claim was that since Google Play Store control over 90% of the app downloads, it was essentially a "monopoly". But they amended the lawsuit, probably because it's tough to prove a monopoly, when Epic once took advantage of side loading Fortnight on Android. Thus avoiding the Play Store and Google's commission. Unlike the Apple App Store, there was no reason (except to make more profit) why Epic had to have Fortnight in the Play Store.
They are now suing Google for anti-completive behavior by claiming that Google stood in their way when they wanted to make Fortnight available in the Samsung Galaxy Store, on Samsung Android phones. This amended lawsuit was meant to support 3 dozen States investigating Google for anti-completive behavior, claiming that Google used anti-competivie tactics to keep other apps stores from opening on Android phones. Investigations I'm sure that was brought about by the lobbying effort of the Coalition of App Fairness.
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
A very stable genius with presidential armchair ambitions! Given that the case is regarding antitrust issues, it is not an over reach for the government to get involved. The government creates the laws that is being used to determine who is and isn’t right in this case. :facepalm:
Sorry for critiquing your side. I welcome the personal attacks; however, you are the odd man out in this thread. 😘
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
Yes that has been a thing since long before you have been born since a judge’s ruling sets binding precedent and effects all other antitrust cases that come after it that the DOJ and other third parties will be involved with.
Name one other civil suit between two private entities that the executive branch has interfered with, and especially only late in the appeals process, which is not supposed to consider new evidence not introduced in the original trial. I am not talking about the judicial branch of government – that’s not what this story is about – obviously judges are involved in a civil suit.
As others in this thread have stated, this is about the leader of the executive branch sending his DOJ to squash an American innovator as a favor to the Chinese, simply because he and his son have multiple business relationships with them.
Let’s not forget, news of a DOJ readying antitrust action against Apple was leaked about a week ago. They are injecting themselves last minute into an *appeal* on an existing case to fast track their own ambitions with regard to Apple, as any decision will have one less appeal available, than if they started from scratch with their own suit against Apple.
Bottom line, our DOJ under the current 10 percent inflation administration which I regretfully voted for is carrying water for Chinese commie owned Epic games (Tencent owns 49 percent), against Apple, a great American company improving people lives with free emergency satellite sos, saving lives with fall detection on watch , crash detection in cars
what exactly is this government doing for the people?
sure seems like they working harder for the Chinese communists than Americans.
How about go after Tik Tok, a company that is acting shady and possibly sending American citizen info to China? But no, let’s go after Apple, what kind of dumb ass brains are working in the current DOJ?
B-Mc-C said: Name one other civil suit between two private entities that the executive branch has interfered with, and especially only late in the appeals process, which is not supposed to consider new evidence not introduced in the original trial.
An amicus brief isn't "interference". It's done all the time and it has nothing to do with introducing evidence.
B-Mc-C said: Name one other civil suit between two private entities that the executive branch has interfered with, and especially only late in the appeals process, which is not supposed to consider new evidence not introduced in the original trial.
An amicus brief isn't "interference". It's done all the time and it has nothing to do with introducing evidence.
B-Mc-C said: Name one other civil suit between two private entities that the executive branch has interfered with, and especially only late in the appeals process, which is not supposed to consider new evidence not introduced in the original trial.
An amicus brief isn't "interference". It's done all the time and it has nothing to do with introducing evidence.
^^^And here's another example involving the FTC from the current administration.
This being an appeal hearing by a Judge, the DOJ doesn't have to introduce any evidence to sway the outcome. Even if what the DOJ say in their brief doesn't change the outcome, it might change the reasoning behind the Judge ruling. The DOJ have interest in not wanting the Judge to rule in Apple favor, in such a way that it will make it harder for them to bring their own suit against Apple, for anti-competitive behavior under the Sherman Act. The DOJ is trying to make sure the Judge leave the door slightly open and not slamming it shut, for future suits against Apple. The DOJ is trying to sway the Judge to interpret the Sherman Act as they see it and not as the Judicial branch have interpret it for over a century.
It is not the job of the DOJ, which falls under the Executive branch, to interpret the law. They are suppose to enforce the laws as interpreted by the Judicial branch. If they don't like how the Judicial branch interprets the law, then they need to get in touch with the Legislative branch to write new laws. That's how the balance of power of our 3 branches of government is suppose to work.
The DOJ is out of line when they say they want to make sure the Judge "correctly" interpret the Sherman Act, for this appeal hearing. It is the job of the Judge to interpret the Sherman Act as it pertains to this hearing and any interpretation by the Judge is "correct", until over ruled by a higher court. Apple should not be tried base on what the current DOJ sees as the "correct" interpretation of the Sherman Act. Not when the DOJ might be bringing their own lawsuit against Apple for anti-competitive behaviors and working with Congress to pass new anti-competition laws under the leadership of Progressive/Socialist leaning POTUS in the Executive branch.
At the very least, this should be seen as a conflict of interest on the part of the DOJ. Even if it might not be considered "interference". There is no way that the current DOJ can be considered "impartial", when it comes to this appeal hearing concerning the outcome of an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple. It's one thing to be "impartial" when looking after the interest of the public and another to be "impartial" when looking after their own interest.
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
Yes, it's a thing.
It's been a thing for a long time. Interested amici can, under federal rules of appellate procedure (or U.S. Supreme Court rules), ask for permission to participate in oral arguments. It's much more common for amici to just file briefs with appellate courts, but they sometimes ask for and are sometimes granted permission to participate in oral arguments even though they aren't otherwise parties in the cases being argued. The federal government in particular often files amicus briefs and sometimes asks to participate in oral arguments. This can happen for various reasons but, notably, it often happens when interpretations of federal law and how it should be applied are at issue. Such is the case in Epic v Apple. Antitrust cases, even between private parties, typically involve the kinds of issues which the federal government is inclined to weigh in on.
This isn't something new. This happened under the last administration as well as previous administrations.
Judges aren’t smart enough to make decisions on their own now?
The judges will make the decision in this case. But prior to making (or issuing) decisions, appellate judges typically hear arguments from the parties originally involved in cases as well as amici who wish to make their own arguments. Amici can include private parties and government entities.
Per the Reuters link provide by the article, the Justice Department isn't taking sides in the case but wants an opportunity to present its own view on the correct interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
IMO, it doesn't really matter what the Justice Department says or doesn't say about the Sherman Antitrust Act since Apple has pointed out that Epic has never provided any evidence of harm to their business. Fortnite was ported to iOS/Android to make some extra $$ after it had already been a smash hit on consoles and PC. By any definition it was also very successful financially on mobile before Epic decided to intentionally break the rules of the iOS platform as a prelude to filing a lawsuit. As Apple has consistently stated, Fortnite represents a business dispute and not an antitrust issue. Another federal court already dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple by BlueMail by citing the financial success that BlueMail achieved on other platforms with the same app.
The Justice Department is, nominally, supporting neither side in this case. But the positions it takes in its amicus brief would help Epic more so than Apple. If the 9th Circuit panel agrees with the Justice Department's arguments, that would get Epic closer to making a case that Apple violated U.S. antitrust law.
In the time it took for you to type out that post you could have done a 10-second search and discovered... Yes Epic also sued Google.
But Epic lawsuit against Google is now for different anti-competitive reasons. At first Epic also sued Google for being anti-competitive with regards to being monopolistic with their Play Store, when Fortnight was ejected from the Play Store for policy violations. Epic initial claim was that since Google Play Store control over 90% of the app downloads, it was essentially a "monopoly". But they amended the lawsuit, probably because it's tough to prove a monopoly, when Epic once took advantage of side loading Fortnight on Android. Thus avoiding the Play Store and Google's commission. Unlike the Apple App Store, there was no reason (except to make more profit) why Epic had to have Fortnight in the Play Store.
They are now suing Google for anti-completive behavior by claiming that Google stood in their way when they wanted to make Fortnight available in the Samsung Galaxy Store, on Samsung Android phones. This amended lawsuit was meant to support 3 dozen States investigating Google for anti-completive behavior, claiming that Google used anti-competivie tactics to keep other apps stores from opening on Android phones. Investigations I'm sure that was brought about by the lobbying effort of the Coalition of App Fairness.
Epic filed an amended complaint in its suit against Google, yes. That happens in a lot, if not most, of these kinds of cases.
But, to be clear, Epic didn't fundamentally change its bases for its suit or drop any of the counts from its original complaint. It just added some information and arguments based on what it found in discovery. Epic still accuses Google of, e.g., violating the Sherman Act by illegally monopolizing the Android App Distribution Market and the Android In-App Payment Processing Market. Its accusations against Google are pretty similar to its accusations against Apple.
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
Yes, it's a thing.
It's been a thing for a long time. Interested amici can, under federal rules of appellate procedure (or U.S. Supreme Court rules), ask for permission to participate in oral arguments. It's much more common for amici to just file briefs with appellate courts, but they sometimes ask for and are sometimes granted permission to participate in oral arguments even though they aren't otherwise parties in the cases being argued. The federal government in particular often files amicus briefs and sometimes asks to participate in oral arguments. This can happen for various reasons but, notably, it often happens when interpretations of federal law and how it should be applied are at issue. Such is the case in Epic v Apple. Antitrust cases, even between private parties, typically involve the kinds of issues which the federal government is inclined to weigh in on.
This isn't something new. This happened under the last administration as well as previous administrations.
I appreciate this response and I’ve learned something new. It still seems to me they have an axe to grind and want to inflict pain on Apple and the shareholders.
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
Yes that has been a thing since long before you have been born since a judge’s ruling sets binding precedent and effects all other antitrust cases that come after it that the DOJ and other third parties will be involved with.
Name one other civil suit between two private entities that the executive branch has interfered with, and especially only late in the appeals process, which is not supposed to consider new evidence not introduced in the original trial. I am not talking about the judicial branch of government – that’s not what this story is about – obviously judges are involved in a civil suit.
As others in this thread have stated, this is about the leader of the executive branch sending his DOJ to squash an American innovator as a favor to the Chinese, simply because he and his son have multiple business relationships with them.
Let’s not forget, news of a DOJ readying antitrust action against Apple was leaked about a week ago. They are injecting themselves last minute into an *appeal* on an existing case to fast track their own ambitions with regard to Apple, as any decision will have one less appeal available, than if they started from scratch with their own suit against Apple.
If you only want one case, I'd point you to Apple v Pepper (USSC, 2019) as particularly fitting.
The reality is that the executive branch 'interferes' with cases between private parties quite often. It files amicus briefs and, less often but it still happens, asks to participate in divided oral arguments. Other kinds of parties do these things as well. This is how our judicial system works. Interested parties get to weigh in (or at least ask to weigh in) on issues being considered by appellate courts. The rules of appellate procedure allow for this. The U.S. Supreme Court's rules allow for this.
Also, to be clear, this isn't about introducing new evidence. It's about arguing legal issues. The DOJ wants to argue its positions relating to how federal antitrust law should be applied. It asked to do something similar in the Apple v Pepper case I referred to above and the Supreme Court allowed it to participate in oral arguments. We get such divided oral arguments (i.e. with argument time being divided up to accommodate the participation of interested parties) from time to time.
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
Yes, it's a thing.
It's been a thing for a long time. Interested amici can, under federal rules of appellate procedure (or U.S. Supreme Court rules), ask for permission to participate in oral arguments. It's much more common for amici to just file briefs with appellate courts, but they sometimes ask for and are sometimes granted permission to participate in oral arguments even though they aren't otherwise parties in the cases being argued. The federal government in particular often files amicus briefs and sometimes asks to participate in oral arguments. This can happen for various reasons but, notably, it often happens when interpretations of federal law and how it should be applied are at issue. Such is the case in Epic v Apple. Antitrust cases, even between private parties, typically involve the kinds of issues which the federal government is inclined to weigh in on.
This isn't something new. This happened under the last administration as well as previous administrations.
I appreciate this response and I’ve learned something new. It still seems to me they have an axe to grind and want to inflict pain on Apple and the shareholders.
You're welcome.
The DOJ does have its positions when it comes to how (or whether) existing antitrust laws should apply in Apple's case. And I'd say those positions are (1) generally not favorable for Apple and (2) generally not right. I think we've stretched existing antitrust laws well beyond their original intent to cover situations for which they aren't needed.
So, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the DOJ's positions are right in this case. I'm just pointing out that its attempts to weigh in on the legal issues in this case aren't that out of the ordinary. Appellate courts see lots of amicus briefs, most of which clearly support one side of a case or the other. And they occasionally allow amici - to include the executive branch of the federal government - to participate in oral arguments.
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
A very stable genius with presidential armchair ambitions! Given that the case is regarding antitrust issues, it is not an over reach for the government to get involved. The government creates the laws that is being used to determine who is and isn’t right in this case. :facepalm:
But the "government" is involve. In this case, it's the Judge presiding over this appeal hearing in a Federal court and who will be making the final ruling. That Judge and court is part of the Judicial branch of our government. Ever hear of "separation of power"? There are three branches of government, The Legislative, The Executive and The Judicial. The Legislative branch creates the law. The Executive branch passes the law. The Judicial branch interprets the laws, case by case.
The Department of Justice is part of the Executive branch of government, they have no business influencing how the Judicial branch interprets the law in a private case. Their job is to enforce the laws as interpreted by the Judicial branch. Right now, the Department of Justice is loaded with anti-corporate progressive officials appointed by POTUS Biden. No way that the Department of Justice should be telling the US Courts and Judges how to "correctly" interpret the Sherman Act for this case. In over a century, SCOTUS have already made many rulings regarding the Sherman Act and don't need the help of a department that is part of the Executive branch, to tell them how to "correctly" interpret the law.
The DOJ should only get involve in a case that involves private parties, for the interest of the public, not to protect their own self interest.
Comments
Yes Epic also sued Google.
who else will give you Satellite SOS for free in a new cell phone?
F the Government and their Chinese communist friends honestly
They are now suing Google for anti-completive behavior by claiming that Google stood in their way when they wanted to make Fortnight available in the Samsung Galaxy Store, on Samsung Android phones. This amended lawsuit was meant to support 3 dozen States investigating Google for anti-completive behavior, claiming that Google used anti-competivie tactics to keep other apps stores from opening on Android phones. Investigations I'm sure that was brought about by the lobbying effort of the Coalition of App Fairness.
https://www.androidheadlines.com/2021/07/epic-claims-google-tried-blocking-samsungs-galaxy-store-files-amended-lawsuit.html
As others in this thread have stated, this is about the leader of the executive branch sending his DOJ to squash an American innovator as a favor to the Chinese, simply because he and his son have multiple business relationships with them.
Let’s not forget, news of a DOJ readying antitrust action against Apple was leaked about a week ago. They are injecting themselves last minute into an *appeal* on an existing case to fast track their own ambitions with regard to Apple, as any decision will have one less appeal available, than if they started from scratch with their own suit against Apple.
what exactly is this government doing for the people?
sure seems like they working harder for the Chinese communists than Americans.
How about go after Tik Tok, a company that is acting shady and possibly sending American citizen info to China? But no, let’s go after Apple, what kind of dumb ass brains are working in the current DOJ?
I like to have my vote for Biden back now!
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-amicus-brief-explaining-harvard-s-race-based-admissions-process
^^^Above is an example of a brief filed by the DOJ during the previous administration.
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/amicus-briefs/ftc-cfpb-submit-amicus-brief-defending-consumers-ability-dispute-inaccurate-items-credit-reports
^^^And here's another example involving the FTC from the current administration.
slice it however you want, this DOJ is there to hurt Apple and help 49 percent Chinese communist owned Epic games
and that is disgusting if you are an American
It is not the job of the DOJ, which falls under the Executive branch, to interpret the law. They are suppose to enforce the laws as interpreted by the Judicial branch. If they don't like how the Judicial branch interprets the law, then they need to get in touch with the Legislative branch to write new laws. That's how the balance of power of our 3 branches of government is suppose to work.
The DOJ is out of line when they say they want to make sure the Judge "correctly" interpret the Sherman Act, for this appeal hearing. It is the job of the Judge to interpret the Sherman Act as it pertains to this hearing and any interpretation by the Judge is "correct", until over ruled by a higher court. Apple should not be tried base on what the current DOJ sees as the "correct" interpretation of the Sherman Act. Not when the DOJ might be bringing their own lawsuit against Apple for anti-competitive behaviors and working with Congress to pass new anti-competition laws under the leadership of Progressive/Socialist leaning POTUS in the Executive branch.
At the very least, this should be seen as a conflict of interest on the part of the DOJ. Even if it might not be considered "interference". There is no way that the current DOJ can be considered "impartial", when it comes to this appeal hearing concerning the outcome of an anti-trust lawsuit against Apple. It's one thing to be "impartial" when looking after the interest of the public and another to be "impartial" when looking after their own interest.
a·mi·cus
nounnoun: amicus; plural noun: amici; noun: amicus curiae; plural noun: amici curiae
an impartial adviser, often voluntary, to a court of law in a particular case
The amicus brief is suppose to be "friend of the court", not friend of Epic Games or enemy of Apple, Inc..
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Amicus+brief
It's been a thing for a long time. Interested amici can, under federal rules of appellate procedure (or U.S. Supreme Court rules), ask for permission to participate in oral arguments. It's much more common for amici to just file briefs with appellate courts, but they sometimes ask for and are sometimes granted permission to participate in oral arguments even though they aren't otherwise parties in the cases being argued. The federal government in particular often files amicus briefs and sometimes asks to participate in oral arguments. This can happen for various reasons but, notably, it often happens when interpretations of federal law and how it should be applied are at issue. Such is the case in Epic v Apple. Antitrust cases, even between private parties, typically involve the kinds of issues which the federal government is inclined to weigh in on.
This isn't something new. This happened under the last administration as well as previous administrations.
But, to be clear, Epic didn't fundamentally change its bases for its suit or drop any of the counts from its original complaint. It just added some information and arguments based on what it found in discovery. Epic still accuses Google of, e.g., violating the Sherman Act by illegally monopolizing the Android App Distribution Market and the Android In-App Payment Processing Market. Its accusations against Google are pretty similar to its accusations against Apple.
The reality is that the executive branch 'interferes' with cases between private parties quite often. It files amicus briefs and, less often but it still happens, asks to participate in divided oral arguments. Other kinds of parties do these things as well. This is how our judicial system works. Interested parties get to weigh in (or at least ask to weigh in) on issues being considered by appellate courts. The rules of appellate procedure allow for this. The U.S. Supreme Court's rules allow for this.
Also, to be clear, this isn't about introducing new evidence. It's about arguing legal issues. The DOJ wants to argue its positions relating to how federal antitrust law should be applied. It asked to do something similar in the Apple v Pepper case I referred to above and the Supreme Court allowed it to participate in oral arguments. We get such divided oral arguments (i.e. with argument time being divided up to accommodate the participation of interested parties) from time to time.
The DOJ does have its positions when it comes to how (or whether) existing antitrust laws should apply in Apple's case. And I'd say those positions are (1) generally not favorable for Apple and (2) generally not right. I think we've stretched existing antitrust laws well beyond their original intent to cover situations for which they aren't needed.
So, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the DOJ's positions are right in this case. I'm just pointing out that its attempts to weigh in on the legal issues in this case aren't that out of the ordinary. Appellate courts see lots of amicus briefs, most of which clearly support one side of a case or the other. And they occasionally allow amici - to include the executive branch of the federal government - to participate in oral arguments.
The Department of Justice is part of the Executive branch of government, they have no business influencing how the Judicial branch interprets the law in a private case. Their job is to enforce the laws as interpreted by the Judicial branch. Right now, the Department of Justice is loaded with anti-corporate progressive officials appointed by POTUS Biden. No way that the Department of Justice should be telling the US Courts and Judges how to "correctly" interpret the Sherman Act for this case. In over a century, SCOTUS have already made many rulings regarding the Sherman Act and don't need the help of a department that is part of the Executive branch, to tell them how to "correctly" interpret the law.
The DOJ should only get involve in a case that involves private parties, for the interest of the public, not to protect their own self interest.