Apple Files Motion to Dismiss Department of Justice Antitrust Lawsuit

[HobeSoundDarryl]

That's not a small difference. That's a wide gap. And the case has very little chance of succeeding.

In the US, there are standards that have to be met for the DOJ case to proceed. And those standards have not been met by a simple understanding of who and who has not been determined to be a monopoly by the courts. Apple doesn't fit the criteria.

OK. We'll see. And since I like Apple and most of my stuff is Apple, I'll hope right with you. However, on this matter- as you and I have already debated in MANY threads- I'm quite pessimistic on the outcome FOR Apple.

Whether this particular action goes anywhere or not, other actions can pop right up behind it- or in parallel with it. Once a GOV decides to deal with this kind of thing, it will get dealt with.

Time will prove such statements right or wrong... not public debate.

 

[rp2011]

It is a preposterous lawsuit—especially the moronic messaging accusations. Apple and every company is SUPPOSED to create innovative solutions to not only differentiate themselves from the competition but to survive. Forcing a company to comply with how they run their business and to spend money for the BENEFIT of their competition is INSANE. COMPLETELY INSANE. A company has to differentiate itself, especially when it is your MOTTO to think differently to survive. Trying to force homogenization because your business strategy is too successful is just bonkers.

As to the other insane claim of Apple being a monopoly, everyone knows that is nuts, Apple has always been a company under the gun having to develop and produce new products and new technologies to fickle consumers year after year to survive and prosper against TRUE monopolies like Microsoft, Intel and Google who could sit back and milk their customers with their "bread and butter" products like Search Windows and computer chips where they have had no incentive or pressure to innovate and consumers having no true options to turn to.

 

[webkit]

Which of course is not per se illegal. Apple doesn't have the market power to push out competitors in the smartphone market; unlike MS who could tie products and keep competitors out while they enjoyed some 90+% of teh OS market.

That's up to the courts to determine and decide. Again, my point was that the argument I previously quoted about there being alternatives to Apple products does not negate antitrust laws. There are only two main mobile OS competitors (iOS being the larger in the U.S.), for example, and the DOJ feels Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior. If Google engaged in similar behavior, I imagine the DOJ would go after them too even though they have the smaller market share.

 

[webkit]

No, of course not. But no US Court has ever found a company to be a Monopoly with lower than 75-80% marketshare. A number Apple does not rise to. The Microsoft case went forward because MS had 90-95% marketshare globally.

I'm not sure but that doesn't mean it can’t or shouldn't happen especially in areas where there are only two major players (a duopoly) in a market such as is the case with iOS and Android.

 

[Infinity Vortex]

I would be shocked if this was simply dismissed.

 

[EM2013]

I don’t ever hear a peep when these studios buy other studios then combine streaming services then raise prices. Or certain studios scrapping films for tax write offs.

I guess none of that is anti competitive

 

[jmgregory1]

All this lawsuit will do is make lawyers richer.

True and unfortunately for us Americans, it will cost taxpayer money that could have been spent on other more useful things. The DOJ is not protecting anyone with this lawsuit, other than a lot of attorney’s billable hours.

 

[Johnny907]

Apple thinking it is above the law is precisely why this lawsuit needs to continue.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

if I was Apple, I'd look to history and evolve my ways.

I'm always astounded when people think they are objectively and morally right on these issues. First, there is no precedence nor any laws in the US that mandate a company operate the way you seem to think is objectively true; so upon what do you base your confidence? And Second, I fundamentally disagree with you and concede zero in my morality to your opinion.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Apple thinking it is above the law is precisely why this lawsuit needs to continue.

What law? Please name the law you're referring to.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Time will prove such statements right or wrong... not public debate.

Courts will prove such statements right or wrong.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm always astounded when people think they are objectively and morally right on these issues. First, there is no precedence nor any laws in the US that mandate a company operate the way you seem to think is objectively true; so upon what do you base your confidence?

I do not claim complete objectivity or "morally right." I'm no judge or jury... just an interested Apple consumer participating in a public forum. I simply look to history when companies got to or at the top- as Apple is now- and flexed like they were still middling or lower players to maximize them profits by exploiting some hold on the market- as Apple is now- only to then "activate" GOV intervention to take action (as last resort)... exactly as it's already begun by more than one GOV on this matter. Ignore history at anyone's own peril.

And Second, I fundamentally disagree with you and concede zero in my morality to your opinion.

And I respect that, as posts are not about convincing anyone of anything but sharing what we believe and sometimes talking about it. You believe whatever you like.

 

[DeepWebinar]

so apple doesn’t think apple is participating in anticompetitive practices? well they would know better than anyone, i’m sure this is going to work
: ^ )

 

[ryan102]

Don't worry everyone. Apple won't have to worry about all these court cases when they pull out of the EU, the US, India, China and some Asian countries.

 

[Abazigal]

Pretty good video breakdown which explains why many of the accusations towards Apple have zero merit.

 

[DeepWebinar]

It is a preposterous lawsuit—especially the moronic messaging accusations. Apple and every company is SUPPOSED to create innovative solutions to not only differentiate themselves from the competition but to survive. Forcing a company to comply with how they run their business and to spend money for the BENEFIT of their competition is INSANE. COMPLETELY INSANE. A company has to differentiate itself, especially when it is your MOTTO to think differently to survive. Trying to force homogenization because your business strategy is too successful is just bonkers.

As to the other insane claim of Apple being a monopoly, everyone knows that is nuts, Apple has always been a company under the gun having to develop and produce new products and new technologies to fickle consumers year after year to survive and prosper against TRUE monopolies like Microsoft, Intel and Google who could sit back and milk their customers with their "bread and butter" products like Search Windows and computer chips where they have had no incentive or pressure to innovate and consumers having no true options to turn to.

lol wait. so apple isn’t a monopoly but microsoft, google, and intel are? that’s absurd. and the idea that they’re barely holding on and having to develop innovative technology to survive hasn’t been true since the ipod.

 

[DeepWebinar]

Don't worry everyone. Apple won't have to worry about all these court cases when they pull out of the EU, the US, India, China and some Asian countries.

apple not selling their products in countries that total up to around 60% of the world’s population would be an incredible business move

 

[JordanCautious]

Let's be honest here. The real winners in the end, as always, will be the lawyers. I know they are going to be seeing dollar signs

 

[techfreak23]

Yeah... not how our market works. Apple stays rich. We consumers get poorer. The price of every lawyer, as well all the development into alternative app stores and such, is something funded by rising prices. Apple isn't losing any profit margin because of this.

People seem to forget this huge result of all of this. Those costs get passed to ALL consumers. Benefits few, but hurts all.

 

[platinumaqua]

I think it is funny people still believe Apple didn't plan to go to USB-C on their own. Maybe they should have been doing it faster, but it was going to happen about the same time it did anyways. And the EU was more targeting all the companies still using micro and mini USB, which was/is a much bigger issue.

In retrospect, I think the right time to switch is with iPhone 12 series back in 2020, since that was a complete chassis redesign

 

[CarAnalogy]

In general... the Apple user experience was built upon reducing friction for its customers using their products. That goes back to early Steve Jobs days. A smart philosophy and a good thing.

I've grudgingly come around on eSIM. Now that they seem to be actually making use of the internal space, and they seem to have successfully forced more network operators to make them easier to use.

When I got my iPhone express replaced under AppleCare, I just transferred the physical SIM to eSIM and haven't thought about it much since. If I ever did want to use it on my cellular iPad again, I'm assuming it wouldn't be too painful to swap it back and forth. No worse than taking the case off and moving the physical card.

 

[Graphate]

Dear Apple lawyers,

The DOJ will have space to prove the claims in a thing called, wait for it, a trial... Google it, it's pretty neat.

In the meantime, I highly advise you don't procrastinate and begin preparing for it. You can argue your case there.

There are many reasons to file a motion to dismiss, sometimes the purpose is to educate the Judge, or simply to test an idea before trial. Sometimes it’s part of a path to narrow the triable issues for trial.

As I've observed before, antitrust suits rarely have a measurable benefit for the consumers. This will drag on for years and then there will be a settlement that appeases no one except the lawyers. The settlement will include promises to change behavior in the years to come. And if the behavior doesn't suit the DOJ, Apple will just pay the fines. <shrug>

There’s a long history coming out of the 1980s that I think you’re focusing on, but there’s a longer history before Robert Bork where antitrust litigation made monumental changes and possibly benefits to consumers.

Even though the intent is to revert to pre-Bork theories about antitrust, I think this particular lawsuit is the wrong one to bring. There are easier targets that should be …targeted… something like telecommunications.

Motion to dismiss is standard procedure. It would be malpractice not to file it.

Maybe not malpractice, but you’re right that motions to dismiss aren’t uncommon.

A motion to dismiss (MTD) is not a "standard step in the litigation process." Every motion costs money and requires the judge's time. An MTD does not always make sense. Sometimes defendants file a partial MTD or none at all.

Right, it depends on so many factors, the facts of the case, the law, the judge… on and on.

Vultures sometimes want a piece of your fortune if they see you’re rich. That’s what this is about.

No this is about the push by Lena Khan to revert to pre-Bork antitrust interpretation.

True and unfortunately for us Americans, it will cost taxpayer money that could have been spent on other more useful things. The DOJ is not protecting anyone with this lawsuit, other than a lot of attorney’s billable hours.

Well US attorneys are salary, and unless you mean the DOJ lawyer’s time could be spent pursuing other lawsuits that salary money isn’t leaving the DOJ to another department.

Let's be honest here. The real winners in the end, as always, will be the lawyers. I know they are going to be seeing dollar signs

There are certainly flaws in the US legal system, but it’s a jaded outlook if you can’t see how antitrust litigation could benefit consumers. And I suppose factually on the DOJ side, US attorneys aren’t going to see a penny of any money from this, they are salary and pretty medium-ly paid at that.

 

[Shirasaki]

I guess this is why there is a saying that “justice is finally served”.
Or maybe some parts of the US law is not evolving compared to EU counterparts.
DOJ may have failed this time, but the quest to keep Apple in check is far from over.

 

[Ethosik]

lol wait. so apple isn’t a monopoly but microsoft, google, and intel are? that’s absurd. and the idea that they’re barely holding on and having to develop innovative technology to survive hasn’t been true since the ipod.

Uh….yes? Getting any other computer, you pretty much need Windows. You can hack and geek out to get Linux to work but the average person, or someone like me that works two jobs and is working on side projects, they all need stuff that just works out of the box.

Heck Windows is the ONLY platform that has the most software available for it and is fully supported.

So yes, Microsoft is a monopoly.

Intel is less so. Google too but they are a bit worse than Intel.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

this is about the push by Lena Khan to revert to pre-Bork antitrust interpretation.

Lena Khan has an ideology that to me, is not rooted in law. I don't find her philosophy in the Sherman Act. That seems to be a problem. Sure, I agree that agencies should have the ability to implement rules. But not in the wholesale creation of the meaning of antritrust. If she wants to have the teeth she thinks she already has, she should work through congress to change/update the Sherman act.

But I also think that she conflates "big" with "anticompetitive." I think Amazon is likely an important target. I don't think Apple comes close to what Amazon has built.

At some point, "monopoly" has to have a definition that can be understood. It can't just be "what the head of an agency thinks it is."

I tend to agree with her relative to Google (browser, ads) and Meta over privacy and data collection. But I think she's unfairly targeted Apple simply because they are "big."