Apple and DOJ Hold Early Settlement Talks in iPhone Antitrust Case

[I7guy]

Of course allegations are just allegations just as there were initially just allegations against Microsoft, allegations against Google, etc. We're still early into this case process.

Having said that, even if Apple (or any company) hasn't been charged with particular conduct doesn't automatically mean they aren't/weren't engaging in illegal conduct. If someone is driving 85 mph in a 55 mph zone, they are committing an illegal act even if they never get pulled over, charged, etc.

Regardless of past similar cases, a new case can still have merit and be "successful" as market definitions can vary (and change), legal theories can vary, evidence and allegations can be different and broader, etc.

Time will tell how this all plays out.

I think we agree:
- Apple is innocent until proven guilty
- Apple may have or may not have crossed a threshold
- Even if Apple crossed a threshold there may not be a finding
- Apple could end up with a finding anyway

The DoJ doesn't win them all. These are some select high profile cases lost or overturned.
- NJ Bridgegate
- Bob McDonnel
- Ted Stevens
- AT&T Time Warner merger
- Microsoft Breakup
- Arthur anderson
- Muhammad Ali Draft Evasion

It's clear the DoJ wins many, many lawsuits, but my point is a lawsuit brought by the DoJ is not a guaranteed win.

 

[webkit]

It's clear the DoJ wins many, many lawsuits, but my point is a lawsuit brought by the DoJ is not a guaranteed win.

Not guaranteed but there are many types of "wins." For example, even though the Microsoft breakup "win" was later overturned, the DOJ had many other wins against Microsoft during the 1990s case/process including various concessions related to Windows, browsers, APIs, ISPs, OEMs, etc.

The "negotiation" process can lead to many wins for the DOJ even without having to go to trial and win in court.

 

[I7guy]

Not guaranteed but there are many types of "wins." For example, even though the Microsoft breakup "win" was later overturned, the DOJ had many other wins against Microsoft during the 1990s case/process including various concessions related to Windows, browsers, APIs, ISPs, OEMs, etc.

The "negotiation" process can lead to many wins for the DOJ even without having to go to trial and win in court.

It’s also heartening to read the reasons behind the losses. The “watchdog” needs watching at times.

 

[webkit]

It’s also heartening to read the reasons behind the losses. The “watchdog” needs watching at times.

One must consider the role "politics" can play e.g., had Gore won in 2000 instead of Bush, it is more likely (although far from guaranteed) that Microsoft would've been broken up. A Gore DOJ presumably would've still pushed for/sought the stronger (breakup) remedy.

 

[I7guy]

One must consider the role "politics" can play e.g., had Gore won in 2000 instead of Bush, it is more likely (although far from guaranteed) that Microsoft would've been broken up. A Gore DOJ presumably would've still pushed for/sought the stronger (breakup) remedy.

For Microsoft they were in the right side of the politics. Nonetheless a loss is a loss.

 

[webkit]

For Microsoft they were in the right side of the politics. Nonetheless a loss is a loss.

I don't think the DOJ is looking for that kind of "win" in the Apple case anyway. It's much more about getting Apple to change its business practices related to messaging apps, smartwatches, digital pay/wallets, cloud gaming and streaming, super apps, app stores, browser engines, access to APIs, etc.

A company actually being broken up as the result of antitrust litigation in the U.S. is rare. It hasn't officially happened since AT&T in the early 1980s, although there are some divestiture rulings currently on appeal.

 

[I7guy]

I don't think the DOJ is looking for that kind of "win" in the Apple case anyway. It's much more about getting Apple to change its business practices related to messaging apps, smartwatches, digital pay/wallets, cloud gaming and streaming, super apps, app stores, browser engines, access to APIs, etc.

A company actually being broken up as the result of antitrust litigation in the U.S. is rare. It hasn't officially happened since AT&T in the early 1980s, although there are some divestiture rulings currently on appeal.

The breakup of AT&T was bittersweet as what we ended up with today is arguably not any better that what we had. We literally have a cartel in the broadest sense of the word.

And while we don’t know what the DOJ and Apple are discussing and if and what changes apple will make or even if apple will opt to go to trial, remains to be seen.

 

[webkit]

The breakup of AT&T was bittersweet as what we ended up with today is arguably not any better that what we had. We literally have a cartel in the broadest sense of the word.

Bittersweet, yes, but I think the AT&T breakup was largely a positive for consumers as it led to cheaper (and eventually "free") domestic long distance thanks to competition from new rivals, it led to more equipment choice/freedom, it allowed for more competition to pursue new innovations and experimentation in the markets once dominated by, and otherwise would’ve been continued to be dominated by, AT&T.

 

[I7guy]

Bittersweet, yes, but I think the AT&T breakup was largely a positive for consumers as it led to cheaper (and eventually "free") domestic long distance thanks to competition from new rivals, it led to more equipment choice/freedom, it allowed for more competition to pursue new innovations and experimentation in the markets once dominated by, and otherwise would’ve been continued to be dominated by, AT&T.

And today all of that is eradicated with arguably a very technological advanced nation having a telecom infrastructure below a lot of the world. So it was some short term gains for long term and I’d argue infinite mediocrity.

Worth it. Not in the least.

 

[webkit]

And today all of that is eradicated with arguably a very technological advanced nation having a telecom infrastructure below a lot of the world. So it was some short term gains for long term and I’d argue infinite mediocrity.

Worth it. Not in the least.

That's a mixed bag. While the fragmentation (AT&T breakup) may have taken away some of the potential benefits of national standards, uniformity, etc. some countries utilize, the positives from innovation, better prices, more alternatives/competition, etc. outweighed the negatives. Worth it. Yes.

Of course, over the years, there has been a lot of re-consolidation (for better or worse) so the U.S. telecom industry isn't as broken up as it had been. The 1996 Telecommunications Act played a major, although largely unintentional, role here.

 

[I7guy]

That's a mixed bag. While the fragmentation (AT&T breakup) may have taken away some of the potential benefits of national standards, uniformity, etc. some countries utilize, the positives from innovation, better prices, more alternatives/competition, etc. outweighed the negatives. Worth it. Yes.

Of course, over the years, there has been a lot of re-consolidation (for better or worse) so the U.S. telecom industry isn't as broken up as it had been. The 1996 Telecommunications Act played a major, although largely unintentional, role here.

That’s what I said. There may have been shone short term gains. Back then judge Harold Greene thought he was doing us a solid.

The long term shows the cartel is even worse than the original “monopoly”.

I’m certain it would have been better if AT&T built out the network. Prices wouldn’t have been “so competitive”, but our cellular network would be better than today.

 

[webkit]

That’s what I said. There may have been shone short term gains. Back then judge Harold Greene thought he was doing us a solid.

Your comment was also, "Worth it. Not in the least." I disagree.

The long term shows the cartel is even worse than the original “monopoly”.

I’m certain it would have been better if AT&T built out the network. Prices wouldn’t have been “so competitive”, but our cellular network would be better than today.

The cartel? You mean AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon? It's an oligopoly, not a cartel, and I have real doubts that leaving AT&T as a monopoly would've resulted in a be better telecom industry than we have today. But we'll never know.