gatorguy

About

Username
gatorguy
Joined
Visits
574
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
18,918
Badges
3
Posts
24,772

Reactions

7.8KLike92Dislike2.2KInformative

  • European Union smacks Apple with $2 billion fine over music streaming

    gatorguygatorguy
    Because Margrethe Vestager is still very angry from losing the Irish tax case, which was over ruled on appeal as it did not provide proof of wrong doing.
    The case is still on-going as far as I know, with Vestager filing to overturn the 2nd highest EU court's ruling about two years ago. Justice moves slow.  

    The most recent news on it was not in Apple's favor. Yup, you even read it here.
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/11/09/apples-14-billion-tax-trial-should-start-over-says-eu

    Now back to the regularly scheduled program. 
    sphericAlex1N

  • Imminent DOJ antitrust case against Apple is in final pre-filing phase -- probably

    gatorguygatorguy
    gatorguy said: That said, by now I'm confident you've realized the basic premise for your opinion that "market share is irrelevant" is wrong, and that's what led to the back and forth posts since.
    My comments about market share weren't wrong. Epic already failed in U.S. federal court with Section 2 arguments so ultimately Apple's market share WAS irrelevant to a successful prosecution.

    Read the judge's comments. Epic attorneys erred in arguing the "relevant market".  From the judge himself after the ruling:

    "Given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic."

    In case you missed it I'll offer it again: According to the judge in the Epic case Apple is only saved by the fact that its (market) share is not higher...
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • Apple Watch Ultra is not the only micro LED project Apple has cancelled

    gatorguygatorguy
    https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/02/apple-acquires-luxvue-a-power-efficient-micro-led-maker---report"
    (Gosh, I forgotten all about the product related Apple Sapphire)

    In 2014 Apple acquired Luxvue Technology, a startup company that developed Micro-LED based displays. Since then, Apple sped up its MicroLED R&D project, and until recently was well into developing solutions for smartwatches, AR, and other types of displays for Apple products, basing from a dedicated microLED research and production facility in Taoyuan, Taiwan.

    “Apple has spent at least $1 billion on the R&D and samples for micro-LED technologies in the past nearly 10 years. It wants to secure more control over the next-gen display technologies for its future products.”

    It's been a long and winding road.

    I think sometimes it takes so long to develop a technology that by the time they're getting close to something being ready the market has already moved on. Apple Car and Apple Watch micro-led display might be examples, both of which have been rumored for a decade. 

    nubus

  • Imminent DOJ antitrust case against Apple is in final pre-filing phase -- probably

    gatorguygatorguy
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said: The book case concerned illegal collusion that resulted in price fixing between Apple and the major publishers. 65% market share is absolutely a relevant statistic when it comes to a company's exposure to antitrust claims. 
    No it isn't.

    U.S. antitrust law is primarily based on demonstrating harm to consumers. That's why a multi-company conspiracy TO RAISE PRICES ON CONSUMERS is a violation even though it was limited to NYT bestsellers and not the entire ebook market. Like I noted, Amazon had nearly 90% control of the ebook market and was not subject to any antitrust lawsuits regarding ebooks. And still aren't today despite having a commission structure that makes Apple's look positively timid. How do you explain that if you think 65% market share is important in regards to U.S. antitrust law? Amazon would be a slam dunk for lawsuits if that was important. 
    https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2935&context=faculty_scholarship

    ...and you are right that if market share is important, then an antitrust lawsuit targeting Amazon might be a slam dunk. On that point you and the FTC agree. :wink: 
    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power
    Read the accusations the FTC makes against Amazon, because you may see one or two similar antitrust claims made by the DoJ targeting Apple. 
    ???

    Your first link is specific to mergers. Are there any controversial mergers that involve Apple? This link doesn't appear to have any relevance at all.

    Your second link specifically states "The complaint alleges that Amazon violates the law not because it is big, but because it engages in a course of exclusionary conduct that prevents current competitors from growing and new competitors from emerging."

    It goes on to list five specific Amazon actions that are considered to be antitrust violations. Of those five, the only one I can see that MIGHT have relevance to Apple would be biasing search results since Apple does have search in the App Store. 
    OOPS! Dropped in the wrong link originally
    https://www.thepolicycircle.org/minibrief/antitrust-laws/

    Term to know: Bainian market power
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • Imminent DOJ antitrust case against Apple is in final pre-filing phase -- probably

    gatorguygatorguy
    gatorguy said: The book case concerned illegal collusion that resulted in price fixing between Apple and the major publishers. 65% market share is absolutely a relevant statistic when it comes to a company's exposure to antitrust claims. 
    No it isn't.

    U.S. antitrust law is primarily based on demonstrating harm to consumers. That's why a multi-company conspiracy TO RAISE PRICES ON CONSUMERS is a violation even though it was limited to NYT bestsellers and not the entire ebook market. Like I noted, Amazon had nearly 90% control of the ebook market and was not subject to any antitrust lawsuits regarding ebooks. And still aren't today despite having a commission structure that makes Apple's look positively timid. How do you explain that if you think 65% market share is important in regards to U.S. antitrust law? Amazon would be a slam dunk for lawsuits if that was important. 
    https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2935&context=faculty_scholarship

    ...and you are right that if market share is important, then an antitrust lawsuit targeting Amazon might be a slam dunk. On that point you and the FTC agree. :wink: 
    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power
    Read the accusations the FTC makes against Amazon, because you may see one or two similar antitrust claims made by the DoJ targeting Apple. 
    muthuk_vanalingam