maximara

Madbum said:

Idiotic politicians with their idiotic bills

Politicians have got to make a show of doing something...while actually doing nothing.

davidw said:

There is no Apple "monopoly". Under the Sherman Act, iOS can not be consider a "relevant market" on which a monopoly is determined. The "relevant market" can not be (or very rarely can be) narrowed down to a single brand.  The "relevant market" in this case would be "mobile devices" or at the least ... "mobile OS". And Apple Pay is not a monopoly  in either of those markets. Apple would have a monopoly with Apple Pay only if the iPhone had a monopoly in the mobile device market or iOS is a monopoly in the mobile OS market.   

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=84446bf5-7cd3-4d98-8c43-e1000c2a7823

Microsoft have a monopoly with Windows OS because MS Windows is on 80% of the World's desktop computers. Not because Microsoft have 100% of the Windows OS market.

Just because one can only buy a Whopper at a BK, that doesn't mean BK, under the Sherman Act, have a monopoly with the Whopper. The "relevant market" would include all fast food burgers and not just the Whopper.  And BK is under no obligation to allow McDonalds to sell Big Macs in their BK diners, to compete with their Whoppers.    

"The threshold of market share for finding a prima facie case of monopoly power is
generally no less than 65% market share. See Image Tech. Servs. II, 125 F.3d at 1206 (“Courts
generally require a 65% market share to establish a prima facie case of market power.”); Hunt-
Wesson, 627 F.2d at 924–25 (“market shares on the order of 60 percent to 70 percent have
supported findings of monopoly power”).592 A more conservative threshold would require a
market share of 70% or higher for monopoly power. See Kolon Indus. Inc. v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 748 F.3d 160, 174 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Although there is no fixed percentage
market share that conclusively resolves whether monopoly power exists, the Supreme Court has
never found a party with less than 75% market share to have monopoly power. And we have
observed that when monopolization has been found the defendant controlled seventy to one
hundred percent of the relevant market.” (citations omitted)); Syufy Enters. v. Am. Multicinema,
Inc., 793 F.2d 990, 995 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[A]s far as we know, neither the Supreme Court nor
any other court has ever decided whether a market share as low as 60-69% is sufficient, standing
alone, to sustain such a finding.”).

"Apple does not have market power in the smartphone market. Rather Apple only has 15 percent of global market share in 2020."

"Thus, the Court finds the relevant geographic market to be global."

JFC_PA said:

get serious said:

I say provide Europeans a Lightning to USB-C adapter the first year, pay the fine, listen to the howl and then go wireless.
 Let them talk themselves to death, and bury them with their own confusion

The fine is a big % of Apple’s GLOBAL sales. That’s not remotely trivial. 

I have to wonder if this would fall under the WTO and if so could they actually do anything to the EU.

JP234 said:

tht said:

Ultimately, you can probably blame the electorate for electing these folks. That's what the majority of voters wanted. To change it, the voters have to vote different.

If you don't understand the problem, you're the problem.

The problem is thanks to gerrymandering many voting districts are autowins for many candidates.  Some are so messed up you could run a brain damaged chimp and it would win.  Take the case of David Andahl who won the election for Representative...even through he was dead.  The really sad thing is there is a fix to this and related insanity — Single Transferable Vote and Shortest-Splitline.  Either one of those would majorly clean up the fluster fubar that many democratic republics are and combined they would be a near knockout punch.  But lots of luck getting either of those set up as it takes away the one thing politicians want - power.

9secondkox2 said:

Just another reason musk is so successgul and the right guy for the job in running Twitter. 

The current CEO basically lied to the public and the government to cover them incompetence of he and his pals. No wonder it’s been such a one sided political mess. 

Musk will likely come back with a high, but still lower offer. 

A solution IS available however. The current leaders simply have to get off their butts and address the problem they’ve allowed (enabled?) to fester. Don’t lie about it people. Fix it. 

A sample size of 100 isn’t going to cut it. And where is the proof the sample was random… it’s obvious the whole thing was a purposely misleading lie. Now they’re caught. Let’s see if the current gang has any scruples to admit it and fix it. 

Anyone who knows anything about statistics can tell you 100 sample out of 330 million is totally useless.  By the way 5% of that is 16.5 million.