Then expect all of this tech to be more expensive. Many of these devices have their price subsidised by having locked down stores and getting a percentage of game/software sales.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cydia Creator's Amended Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hardly. Cydia relied on a weakness in iS to to run and Apple fixed the flaw. That is no different than using an undocumented API and the having it chnage and break your program.
You are reading the wrong textbook on anti-trust.
Nor do they occur because you want them to. Apple has competitors that are quite viable in the marketplace that offer alternatives. Apple doesn't set prices ut allows developers to and then adds their margin, similr to any store. They have not colluded with other manufacturers to set prices.
Which is why I've said a decision forcing them to allow alternate app stores may hurt smaller developers in terms of higher fees and more upfront costs. Apple could license certification, requiring an upfront fee and a % of sales, for example, meaning a developer has to front costs even before they know if they'll sell one unit.
They haven't becasue we have options.
Which is why Ron White is very prescient when he said "You can't fix stupid. Don't even try..."
Yeah, I’d seen that. What I hadn’t realized, and seemed worth specifically calling out, is that that document was not simply outdated, a press release was issued 13 years ago stating that it was actively withdrawn and no longer policy.
That makes repeatedly quoting it as support for an argument not a mere quaint historical reference, but intentional misinformation.
He was once paid by Apple.
Looking back at post #242 where that archive was used to "refute" an actual ruling by an actual Judge that Apple has already been in front of, I could argue that at that point we passed Hanlon's razor and had gone onto intentional misinformation. It isn't on par with pointing to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1967 but it is in the same box of irrelevant to modern law. That is why I keep pointing to Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 — its our best example of how modern law defines an monopoly.
And? He’s also been paid by Microsoft, Oracle, and I believe even Google. He has a terrible track record and he writes opinion pieces which are far from objective.
Has he been paid by Epic? That is the moot point. If not, since he was paid by Apple once, he should be favorable to them or at least not be against them. Yet, his analysis is against Apple's chances of winning the appeal against Epic. If we consider the fact that Whitehouse and Attorney Generals of 35 US states have come out with Amicus Curiae that supports Epics position and clearly point out that the Judge is wrong in the briefs, it matches Florian's analysis. Of course, anything can happen in the US courts so it is not an open and shut case for Epic, but things are definitely looking bleak for Apple there.
I’m one of those people and still have my 12 Pro Max on 14.1. I have no need to upgrade my iOS and lose my jailbreak until iOS 16 is released and the 14 series debuts. I’m going to keep my 12 Pro Max as a back up phone and keep it jailbroken.
That brief says something rather different that what you say it does. In effect it argues that all antitrust laws are irrelevant to applications of the specific-to-California law that Epic thinks applies here.
Nope. The actual argument in the brief is given below and it clearly supports Epic's position.
Epic's brief highlights what a proper balancing test would look like in this case. And Amici States have a significant interest in seeing that the test occurs. Apple's conduct has harmed and is harming mobile app developers and millions of citizens within the Amici States' boundaries. Meanwhile Apple continues to monopolize app-distribution and in-app
payment solutions for iPhones, stifle competition, and amass supracompetitive profits within the almost trillion-dollar-a-year smartphone industry. Apple must account for its conduct under a complete rule of reason analysis.
Finally, endorsing the district court's approach here could frustrate future enforcement actions in the Ninth Circuit. By stopping at the less-restrictive means inquiry and failing to balance the overall competitive effects, the district court's analysis "morph the role of antitrust law from an ex-ante deterrent of net anticompetitive behavior to an ex-post regulator of procompetitive business decisions." Feldman, The Demise of the Rule of Reason, 24 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. at 954. Firms with the most egregious anticompetitive behavior could escape liability by showing only the slightest procompetitive benefit.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order should be reversed.
DocumentCloud
Being paid by someone doesn’t make you perpetually loyal to them. A lot of people supported Epic and they still lost their first round in court. Their arguments are on even shakier ground during the appeals process as they have to stay in the bounds of the original case and ruling. They did not lose because of an error in the legal process. They lost because their argument was flawed and the appeals process is not going to let them change it.
Quoting a specific passage from a withdrawn and therefore irrelevant document in the DOJ archives is not a generalization it is a very specific misuse of information. Regardless of the level of generality of the discussion, you still need to support your assertions with actual factual information.
Then, please, explain it to the rest of us then because it looks like you’re trying very hard to avoid admitting you’re wrong— but maybe we’re simply not understanding. You seem to keep repeating this threshold number, sometimes padding it with additional qualifiers, and in combination with your other statements it sounds a lot to me like you believe that if a company has more than 50% market share is meets some “share criteria” (your words) and is considered a monopoly so all that remains is to determine if it’s a legal or illegal one. That is not how it works.
No, but a press release from the Attorney General stating that the something is “withdrawn” and “no longer policy” does.
The fact that you keep repeating this specific narrow quotation, over and over and over, highlighting that it comes straight from the Department of Justice to give it additional credibility, as support for your assertions and as arguments against actual case law which @Maximara has taken the time to link you to, when you know that it’s not just old but actively withdrawn and declared non-policy is disingenuous at a minimum.
What I meant by my 50% share percentage was that it has generally been considered the minimum necessary to meet the share criteria portion for monopoly power in antitrust cases. It wasn't about being a definitive minimum (or I would've specifically said so), average number (or I wouldn't have added words like "over" or "above") or only factor (as I assumed it was common knowledge that other elements are involved).
The broader "policy" was withdrawn apparently because it was felt it may have been too limiting or not aggressive enough but the section I quoted was more a general summary of past court activity/findings which could still be applicable in the future. Nothing I have read points to the section I quoted being meaningfully different today but this doesn't mean things can't change or shift in the future.
Contrary, you can legally makes private copies of things you own. And any license agreement you sign that restricts the use of your property aren't legally enforceable. Eu have strong Private property rights for individuals.
Buying an iPhone have no legal difference than you buying a car, table. This includes software irrespective of how it's transferred, you can modify it as you wish.
And unless these contracts are signed before you purchase, they aren't binding, and will be recognized as transfer of ownership. Plus, if the license is a perpetual license with no end date or absurdly long, it will also count as a transfer of ownership as the first sale doctrine
Again Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 expressly states "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”). Sure there might be a few oddballs cases but generally the minimum necessary percentage is 65%.
More over the court clarified this: "[M]arket share is just the starting point for assessing market power.” Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 627 F.2d 919, 925 (9th Cir. 1980). It “should not be equated with monopoly power” but instead is “evidence from which the existence of monopoly power may be inferred . . . .” Hunt-Wesson, 627 F.2d at 924. Indeed, as the Ninth Circuit has cautioned, “lind reliance upon market share, divorced from commercial reality, could give a misleading picture of a firm’s actual ability to control prices or exclude competition.” Id. In other words, “market share, while being perhaps the most important factor, does not alone determine the presence or absence of monopoly power.”
Last edited:
I loved Cydia back in the day when Apple refused to add the features everyone clamored for. Steve Jobs said no one wanted Copy & Paste. They did...he just didn't know how to properly implement it yet. Good thing Cydia was there.
Can you please link me to something somewhere that shows a "share criterion for monopoly power" in antitrust cases.
At least in the US, there's a strong bias against punishing success. So the question is never "does this company clear the lowest possible bar to be called a monopoly", the question is "does this company's behavior in the market indicate it has acquired monopoly-like power" and market share is little more than a sanity check usually phrased as "is their market share close enough to 100% to indicate their market power is significant and durable" rather than "is their market share marginally above 50% so we can call them a monopoly and move on the phase 2". Even the close enough bar is based more on circumstance than a threshold but the closer one is to 50%, the more reluctant the government is to prosecute. The tech sector shifts quickly, so to have durable market power you’d need to be more than barely the dominant seller.
When you see summaries stating "companies with less than some market share are rarely found in violation of anti-trust" it doesn't mean a threshold value is what triggered the case, it's the result of a retrospective survey.
The report wasn’t partially withdrawn, it was fully withdrawn so should be disregarded. I would need to find documentation beyond the AGs “tough on crime” statement to know for sure what they wanted to replace. If it’s a summary of past findings, you should be able to find a more trustworthy source. Don‘t quote a withdrawn report and then hide that fact by not linking back to it.
More to the point, don’t trust a withdrawn report even if it says what you already believe to be true.
Then you aren’t reading @Maximara ’s replies to you.
That is my feeling as well. An a related note App Store Stopped 1.6 Million 'Risky' and 'Untrustworthy' Apps From Defrauding Users, Says Apple.
"Thus, the Court finds that centralized distribution through the App Store increases security in the “narrow” sense, primarily by thwarting social engineering attacks."
"Thus, the Court finds that app distribution restrictions increase security in the “broad” sense by allowing Apple to filter fraud, objectionable content, and piracy during app review while imposing heightened requirements for privacy." — Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21
Last edited:
A Cydia developer brought Copy/Paste in the exact same way Apple later implemented it. Same thing with Notifications. Another Cydia developer, the only difference here was that that developer was hired at Apple and Apple used his code to implement the notification changes.
That's how we now have banners, sounds and badges.
"Generally no less" is not definitive and still could include 53%, 61% or whatever which would fall into my "50% share generally considered the minimum" statement. One does not make the other inaccurate. Again, these are all generalizations and we also need to consider that courts outside the U.S. can have different criteria.
The DOJ past case summary and FTC statements were examples. You are welcome to do a search for what is a monopoly or monopoly power and you will find various references to 50% but, again, none of these are going to be definitive. You can also ask @BaldiMac where he concluded "50% share is generally considered a minimum, not definitive" as I have been in agreement with that. There are also varying regulations outside the U.S.
I never said partially. I was pointing out that the section I quoted was summarizing past case findings. Past case history can still be relevant to future cases. Yes, courts may decide to become more aggressive in the future regarding monopoly power but that remains to be seen. Various factors play into these things.
His comments didn't make my statement inaccurate e.g., the Supreme Court has a different threshold (typically only accepts around 1% to 2% of cases) for hearing cases which is irrelevant to what lower courts may take or how they may choose to rule, "Generally no less" is not definitive, etc.
True, which is why I said “and sell them.”
The thing is owning a physical object does not mean you own the rights to anything beyond the physical object, even if they are embedded in the object.
A lot depends on the circumstances and the law. A signature is not needed to be a valid and binding contract.
The first sale doctrine is not absolute either, depending on the law and jurisdiction.
I see both sides of the argument. I would never use a 3rd party app store for iOS apps, but I don't have an issue with someone else doing so.
So you seem to be avoiding deeper discussion on anything I say that deviates from your initial assertion and unwilling to provide much support from reputable sources beyond withdrawn reports that don’t address the question. I'm going to file this under "unwilling to teach, unwilling to learn" and put my time to more productive use.
Last edited: