Presumption of innocence is only guaranteed in criminal proceedings. However, some antitrust cases are civil cases. DoJ is not bringing any criminal prosecution against Apple.
Last edited:
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 Terminates Epic Games' Developer Account
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Presumption of innocence is only guaranteed in criminal proceedings. However, some antitrust cases are civil cases. DoJ is not bringing any criminal prosecution against Apple.
If Apple decided today that macOS users can only install apps from Mac App Store. That would certainly be illegal.
Edit: Violates the Sherman Act. There has been no previous rulings on app stores, so I cannot provide any case law citation. But the illegality is self-evident.
The whole case with iOS is that it's been illegal from the very beginning.
If App Store's perversion of justice is allowed, what's to stop Apple from charging you 30% when you use Microsoft Office, Photoshop, or other paid macOS apps? Why can't Apple ban Spotify and force you to use Apple Music? Why can't Apple ban Netflix and force you to use Apple TV+? Why can't Apple ban other credit cards and force you to use Apple's?
As the Supreme Court aptly put in Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 458 (1993):
Last edited:
No it wouldn't. Please cite what law you are referring to.
No it hasn't. Just like it wasn't illegal when every flip phone only included software from the company that sold the phone.
The free market. People would stop buying apple products if they didn't want to pay 30%.
Maybe they can, maybe they can't. I haven't seen any court say so one way or another.
"Trusts are the organization of several businesses in the same industry and by joining forces, the trust controls production and distribution of a product or service, thereby limiting competition. Monopolies are businesses that have total control over a sector of the economy, including prices." - Monopolies and Trusts
While it is a called the Sherman Antitrust Act it actual deals with trusts and monopolies. Last I checked Apple was a single company so the Trust part does not apply and there is no way ~25% is total control of the mobile market. No matter how you want to spin doctor it (and at this stage I would say the spin doctor need a doctor for the nausea that Epic's tilt a whirl definitions are likely causing
) neither term applies.A relevant case (on remand, Kodak was found to have violated section 2 of the Sherman Act (monopolization)).
Kodak, a printer manufacturer cannot force its customers to use its own repair service. The repair service for that brand of printer was a relevant antitrust market. Kodak has only 25% market share.
"Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket.[1] The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts."
.
App distribution on iOS is a a single-brand aftermarket dependent on and derivative of Apple's primary product, iPhone. So it satisfies exactly Supreme Court's criteria. Psystar lost because macOS was not an independent single-brand market so macOS-compatible hardware was not a derivative aftermarket. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1903111/apple-inc-v-psystar-corp/
Last edited:
"Trusts are the organization of several businesses in the same industry and by joining forces, the trust controls production and distribution of a product or service, thereby limiting competition. Monopolies are businesses that have total control over a sector of the economy, including prices." - Monopolies and Trusts
While it is a called the Sherman Antitrust Act it actual deals with trusts and monopolies. Last I checked Apple was a single company so the Trust part does not apply and there is no way ~25% is total control of the mobile market. No matter how you want to spin doctor it (and at this stage I would say the spin doctor need a doctor for the nausea that Epic's tilt a whirl definitions are likely causing
Please read this DoJ report instead of encyclopedia.com to learn about unlawful monopolization.
Competition And Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 Of The Sherman Act : Chapter 1
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.
LOL. That's not what "primary" means in "primary product." Primary and secondary refer to two products that are "bundled" under antitrust law.
Bundling (antitrust law) - Wikipedia
LOL. That's not what "primary" means in "primary product." Primary and secondary refer to two products that are "bundled" under antitrust law.
Bundling (antitrust law) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"Here, in contrast, Psystar alleges not a single-brand aftermarket dependent on and derivative of a specific company's primary product but instead that a single brand of primary product (Apple's operating system) constitutes an independent market. Neither Newcal Industries nor Kodak addressed such a situation. Psystar has cited no decision lending support to its single-brand product market theory"
Edit: my original statement was corrected.
Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp. – CourtListener.com
Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp. — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
Last edited:
Yes, that is exactly what the judge is talking about. In antitrust law "primary product" has a specific meaning - it is the product a supposed monopolist is attempting to leverage in order to force sales or control a secondary product.Could you please read and try to understand what the judge was saying in Psystar? He/she was not talking about bundling. If you want to correct an actual judge's word, go ahead.
"Here, in contrast, Psystar alleges not a single-brand aftermarket dependent on and derivative of a specific company's primary product but instead that a single brand of primary product (Apple's operating system) constitutes an independent market. Neither Newcal Industries nor Kodak addressed such a situation. Psystar has cited no decision lending support to its single-brand product market theory"
Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp. – CourtListener.com
Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp. — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.www.courtlistener.com
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether the product was the company's "main" product.
That wasn't my primary point anyway.
Kodak found that repair service for a specific brand constituted a relevant antitrust market. SLA for iOS does not contractually bind users to install apps from App Store (no such phrases as "You agree to only install apps from App Store"). Apple did not inform users before purchase that they can only install apps from the App Store or that the App Store charges 30% commission.
"the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant (as in Queen City Pizza and Forsyth)."
Buying an iPhone while knowing App Store's monopoly is not any contractual agreement.
--------
Edit:
Epic stated in their compliant seeking injunctive relief that "no developer alone has sufficient power to overcome the network effects and switching costs associated with iOS (see Part III below) to entice enough iOS users to leave iOS, such that developing apps solely for other platforms would be profitable."
In Kodak, the Supreme Court precisely recognized the economic realities of information costs and switching costs in determining the relevant antitrust markets. "In sum, there is a question of fact whether information costs and switching costs foil the simple assumption that the equipment and service markets act as pure complements to one another." (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112744/eastman-kodak-co-v-image-technical-services-inc/)
Apple did not disclose to its users how much they earn from App Store's monopoly, so consumers couldn't factor that in when purchasing iPhones. The high price of iPhone compared to most apps further demonstrates that the switching cost allows Apple to maintain supracompetitive prices.
Kodak found that repair service for a specific brand constituted a relevant antitrust market. SLA for iOS does not contractually bind users to install apps from App Store (no such phrases as "You agree to only install apps from App Store"). Apple did not inform users before purchase that they can only install apps from the App Store or that the App Store charges 30% commission.
"the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant (as in Queen City Pizza and Forsyth)."
Buying an iPhone while knowing App Store's monopoly is not any contractual agreement.
--------
Edit:
Epic stated in their compliant seeking injunctive relief that "no developer alone has sufficient power to overcome the network effects and switching costs associated with iOS (see Part III below) to entice enough iOS users to leave iOS, such that developing apps solely for other platforms would be profitable."
In Kodak, the Supreme Court precisely recognized the economic realities of information costs and switching costs in determining the relevant antitrust markets. "In sum, there is a question of fact whether information costs and switching costs foil the simple assumption that the equipment and service markets act as pure complements to one another." (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112744/eastman-kodak-co-v-image-technical-services-inc/)
Apple did not disclose to its users how much they earn from App Store's monopoly, so consumers couldn't factor that in when purchasing iPhones. The high price of iPhone compared to most apps further demonstrates that the switching cost allows Apple to maintain supracompetitive prices.
Last edited:
That was fun.Please read this DoJ report instead of encyclopedia.com to learn about unlawful monopolization.
Competition And Monopoly: Single-Firm Conduct Under Section 2 Of The Sherman Act : Chapter 1
This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.www.justice.gov
"But, as the second element makes clear, "the possession of monopoly power will not be found unlawful unless it is accompanied by an element of anticompetitive conduct."(7) Such conduct often is described as "exclusionary" or "predatory" conduct." Sounds more like Epic then Apple to me.
"Section 2's unilateral-conduct provisions apply only to firms that already possess monopoly power or have a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power." Neither of these apply to Apple (~25 of mobile market). Heck, Google is fits under this more than Apple does.
"But conduct that is illegal for a monopolist may be legal for a firm that lacks monopoly power because certain conduct may not have anticompetitive effects unless undertaken by a firm already possessing monopoly power"
And the fun keeps going. My late great uncle Chief Justice Morrison Waite must be looking down at these effort to justify Epic's nonsense and laughing his angel wings off.
Epic forbids any app on their store from being on Steam and they don't tell user that. So your point?
Last edited:
You great uncle died (1888) even before the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed by the Congress (1890), so he certainly would have no idea why you are invoking his name here.
iPhone is in a primary market. App distribution on iOS, where Apple has absolute monopoly (Kodak says that this is possible), is a single-brand secondary aftermarket dependent on the primary market. Apple purposely put in place technological barriers in iOS that prevent users from using other app stores. That's the exclusionary anti-competitive conduct. Kodak says even if Kodak did not have monopoly in the primary market, it can have monopoly in the single-brand secondary aftermarket of repair service for Kodak printers. And the district court ruled that its conduct did violate section 2 of the Sherman Act.
My point was that app distribution on iOS is not a contractually created monopoly, so it can be a relevant antitrust market. "The law prohibits an antitrust claimant from resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant (as in Queen City Pizza and Forsyth)."(https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/112744/eastman-kodak-co-v-image-technical-services-inc/)
It's curious why so many people defend Apple even though Apple in the past has been found to violate antitrust laws: Apple conspired with book publishing companies to raise and fix the price for e-books and was ordered to pay $450 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_Inc.)
Wonder how much Apple will pay this time (Epic did not ask for damages, but hopefully FTC or DoJ can issuse some "epic" fines for Apple).
Last edited:
If they could do it then they are not doing it now, are they? Besides consoles do this all the flipping time with xbox live and nintendo store coming to mind. Never mind Epic's assisting in what amounts to bait and switch with games like Shenmue 3 and Metro Exodus.
It was even more egregious for Metro Exodus because the developer had actually been adversing the game for Steam and accepting pre-orders for a release that year. Only for Epic to announce two weeks before the target date that they got an exclusive and the game wouldn't be available on Steam until the next year.
"We think the decision to remove the game is unfair to Steam customers, especially after a long pre-sale period. We apologize to Steam customers that were expecting it to be available for sale through the February 15th release date, but we were only recently informed of the decision and given limited time to let everyone know."
Unfold Games understood this was shady as all get out and told Epic to basically take their exclusivity agreement and shove it: "But although I'm a first time developer, I'm very serious about working in this industry for a very long time. I had just announced 'DARQ' release date on Steam — pulling the game off Steam a few days after Steam release date announcement would forever ruin the credibility of my studio."
"More meaningfully, if you're an indie developer interested in bringing your game to the Epic Games Store and to Steam, Epic won't allow that. The concept, known as "simship" or "simulatenous shipping," isn't allowed by Epic for smaller games. The game either goes to Steam, or it goes to Epic Game Store, but Epic won't allow for both."
16 Reasons Why Your App Could Be Rejected by Apple shows that many of the issue are crash and bugs ie programers thinking iOS is like Android
And Epic wants to turn the iPhone and iPad into this garbage fire by forcing Apple to let any Tom Dick and Harry to put out what amounts garbage apps?!
Last edited:
Just read the latest on the Epic nonsense. Apple wants a jury trial while Epic doesn't. Looks like Epic has no belief in 12 possible consumers. Never mind the judge isn't buy a lot of the legal nonsense Epic is selling.
Some of the fun things reported by Appleinsider:
Apple said Epic was trying to portray itself as a "modern corporate Robin Hood," but really it was a "multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store."
Apple accused Epic of using the affair as a marketing exercise for the game, which Apple believed was declining in popularity. "If Epic were truly concerned that it would suffer reputational injury from this dispute, it would not be engaging in these elaborate efforts to publicize it,"
Perhaps I missed it but has Apple pointed out that a 30% commission is normal for this industry?
Never mind the judge isn't buy a lot of the legal nonsense Epic is selling.Some of the fun things reported by Appleinsider:
Apple said Epic was trying to portray itself as a "modern corporate Robin Hood," but really it was a "multi-billion dollar enterprise that simply wants to pay nothing for the tremendous value it derives from the App Store."
Apple accused Epic of using the affair as a marketing exercise for the game, which Apple believed was declining in popularity. "If Epic were truly concerned that it would suffer reputational injury from this dispute, it would not be engaging in these elaborate efforts to publicize it,"
Perhaps I missed it but has Apple pointed out that a 30% commission is normal for this industry?
Apple wants a jury trial for the same reason Flame’s lawyers pushed for one in their suit against Katy Perry. They figure they’ll have an easier time bamboozling 12 ’consumers’ than an expert who is well-versed in antitrust law.
From what I am reading I think Epic is hoping they could snow job a judge even if they are "an expert who is well-versed in antitrust law".
So far the current judge (from appleinsider):
* Rebuked Epic for not producing documents of discovery, deeming the action "convenient for Epic."
* Stated Epic's definition of the market is a fail safe definition, because as defined Apple must be a monopoly
* Said the 30% rate is the industry rate— referencing Steam, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have the same rate.
* Said that Epic's lawyers failedl to establish a market, stating they hope to narrow the view to evade addressing market practices
* Pointed out this in this so called "Wild West" that walled gardens have existed for four decades. Referenced Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo as examples similar to Apple creating a platform
*Stated that plaintiffs and defendants always want markets to be defined in their favor
*Agreed with Apple that IAP does not seem to be a separate or distinct product as Epic says
*Stated that Forrest's (Epic's lawyer) regarding the ban of the Unread Engine was circular (ie she wasn't buying it)
*Stated to Epic: "You were not forthright. You weren't. You were told you couldn't do it, and you did." Referencing the hot fix
Judge Gonzalez has agreed with Apple's request for a jury trial so she basically didn't buy the large amount of snake oil Epic was selling.
About the only thing she did agree with Epic on Apple's claims about needing to shutter Unreal Engine development being overblown but then Apple stated that Epic could sneak more past Apple's review process which would encourage others to do the same
Heck, Epic couldn't even tell the judge when Apple became monopolist and could only claim Apple had been by 2018 when Epic entered the scene. Epic's case is not just a garbage fire but they seem to be throwing gasoline on it.
Last edited:
Just read the latest on the Epic nonsense. Apple wants a jury trial while Epic doesn't. Looks like Epic has no belief in 12 possible consumers.
They suddenly realised that 12 year olds can't be jurors 🤣🤣🤣