maximara
About
- Username
- maximara
- Joined
- Visits
- 35
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 328
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 409
Reactions
-
Apple asks court to stay part of the Epic Games lawsuit injunction
Well there was that 1927 ruling (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200) that you could fix stupid by sterilizing them against their will. (scary)davidw said:
You can't fix stupid. And there are more than a few people like @darkvader that thinks that anti-trust laws applies when the "relevant market" is narrowed down to a single brand. That is narrow minded thinking at its best. Thus their claim that "Apple has a monopoly on iDevices or iOS or the Apple App Store. That is not the case. Any market narrowed down to a single brand can not be used for a lawsuit claiming anti-trust violations.maximara said:
The judge was quite clear on what the market was: "As compared to others, in antitrust cases, courts regularly recognize global markets. See, e.g., United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding relevant geographic market encompassing “the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide”); United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 63 F.3d 95, 108 (2d Cir. 1995) (upholding worldwide geographic market for film). The United States antitrust laws’ concern with anticompetitive conduct, includes harm that such American businesses suffer relating to their transactions with foreign consumers. See 15 U.S.C. § 6a (Sherman Act generally applies to conduct affecting “export trade”). " Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 Page 134 of 185darkvader said:How about NO.The judge got it wrong, of course. Apple IS a monopoly, and the app monopoly on iDevices needs to be ended.But this injunction absolutely needs to stand. Apple's position is unreasonable.
Courts have to follow precedent not go off into their own little world.
Otherwise, when the "relevant market" are consumers that buy "Big Mac" burgers, McDonalds can be sued for having a monopoly on "Big Mac" burgers and that's why "Big Mac" burgers are only available in a McDonalds. Plus McDonalds do not allow third parties like BK, to sell (or even advertise) their "Whoppers" inside a McDonalds, to McDonalds customers.
Here's a very good write-up on how the courts ruled on this Epic/Apple case and why. And anyone with an ounce of understanding on how anti-trust laws works, will know that the Judge could not have ruled in any other way, when it comes to Epic claim of Apple having a monopoly.
https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform
Notice that the one ruling against Apple, pertaining to CA Unfair Competition Law is vague. CA UCL is a catch all and the courts can interpret what they see as "unfair" practices, as a violation of CA UCL. There is no written part of the CA UCL and dictates that it's unfair competition for an entity to not allow competitors to advertise within their own stores. That is just what Judge Gonzales interpret as "unfair" when Apple do not allow developers to advertise and provide a link to a competing payment system in order to avoid paying Apple commission.
Thus while Epic nearly has no chance of winning on appeal, base on the argument they brought forth and current anti-trust laws as written. Apple stands a good chance of winning, as the Judge ruling pertaining to CA UCL, might be way overboard with regards to the original intention and reach, of CA UCL.
Hoeg Law (an actual Lawyer) went through the case as it happened in Epic v Apple: Just the Trial and in the last part of that series (Epic v Apple: Judgment Day - Who Won? Who Lost? ...and Why? (VL538)) he effectively lambasted the way the majority of the media reported the ruling via their headlines. Of those he presented only IGN got it right. He also points out that the Judge's one ruling for Epic is on shaky ground because it is not "black letter law" - it is an interpretation of a vague law and felt it was "most likely to suffer on appeal". If he is right than Apple likely will get its injunction and Epic will continue to court shop (as it did by going to Australia even though the contract Epic agreed to expressly stated all litigation must occur in the Northern District of California.
Given Epic has lost all but one point and Apple was appealing the ruling that the Australia case could go forward that case may get thrown out.
-
Apple asks court to stay part of the Epic Games lawsuit injunction
Not only an Apple hater, but a clueless Apple hater. Given Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 I'm not sure how a state law can interfere with interstate commerce (which the judge's ruling does). It's like the states that legalized marijuana - they have no effect on it's legality outside their borders. Apple is right. Epic not longer has a horse in this race (it is currently in the stable with three broken legslkrupp said:
No, @darkvader is not being sarcastic. Just take a look at its previous posts. Apple hater extraordinaire.Beats said:I’mchadbag said:
Ha ha ha. Lol. ߤ㰟䣰藍ߤ㰟䣰ߘⰟ肰藍ߤ㰟䣰ߘⰟ肰ߙ䰟鄰ߙ䰟鄦lt;br>darkvader said:How about NO.The judge got it wrong, of course. Apple IS a monopoly, and the app monopoly on iDevices needs to be ended.But this injunction absolutely needs to stand. Apple's position is unreasonable.
There is a reason I expect you are not a lawyer. In no sense of the word is Apple a legal monopoly.I THINK (hope) he was being sarcastic. Like i said, the goalposts, the rules, heck, the whole game changes when people criticize Apple. Nintendo isn’t a monopoly for their eShop
but Apple is a monopoly for their services.
),
-
Apple asks court to stay part of the Epic Games lawsuit injunction
The judge was quite clear on what the market was: "As compared to others, in antitrust cases, courts regularly recognize global markets. See, e.g., United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 52 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (upholding relevant geographic market encompassing “the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide”); United States v. Eastman Kodak Co., 63 F.3d 95, 108 (2d Cir. 1995) (upholding worldwide geographic market for film). The United States antitrust laws’ concern with anticompetitive conduct, includes harm that such American businesses suffer relating to their transactions with foreign consumers. See 15 U.S.C. § 6a (Sherman Act generally applies to conduct affecting “export trade”). " Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 Page 134 of 185darkvader said:How about NO.The judge got it wrong, of course. Apple IS a monopoly, and the app monopoly on iDevices needs to be ended.But this injunction absolutely needs to stand. Apple's position is unreasonable.
Courts have to follow precedent not go off into their own little world. -
Apple Silicon MacBook Pro and AirPods event is on October 18
-
Apple appeals ruling in Epic Games lawsuit, requests stay on App Store changes
Actually Epic appealed first. By doing so Apple can take the PR high road. It wouldn't surprise me if after this mess Apple doesn't put some binding arbitration clause in its developer contracts - if you are over $x (likely the 1 million for the 30%) you must go through arbitration.crowley said:Aren’t Epic also appealing? Seems odd that a ruling would be disputed by both sides.
