Really, can you point out to me where the article says the DOJ complaint is a joke and it is falling apart?
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 vs. the U.S. Department of Justice: What You Need to Know
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"“I think that they made an even stronger case than I thought that they could,” says Rebecca Haw Allensworth, antitrust professor and associate dean for research at Vanderbilt Law School. “They told a very coherent story about how Apple is making its product, the iPhone and the products on it – the apps — less useful for consumers in the name of maintaining their dominance.” "
The lawsuit makes a strong case for consumer harm in addition to harm to developers, says Allensworth, comparing it favorably to the Federal Trade Commission’s suit against Amazon. This, according to Allensworth, was the “missing piece” in the FTC suit against Amazon. “This is just a more plausible story about consumers,” Allensworth says of the Apple complaint, making it, “as a legal matter, a stronger lawsuit.”
The above is just above your comments.
"William Kovacic, a former FTC chair who teaches antitrust at George Washington University Law School, says the Apple complaint is “well-written” and shows the DOJ is “learning a lot and applying their learning very effectively across the different cases they’ve been having.” The government, he says, has probably paid close attention to what happened in Epic’s lawsuit against Apple over the App Store. “They’ve written a complaint in a way that seeks to avoid weaknesses that I think the judge might have seen in that case, to add additional material so it’s not simply a reprise of Epic v. Apple.”"
“DOJ has stepped back from the details and simply asked and answered the question, what are all these about?” says John Kwoka, professor of economics at Northeastern University who recently served as chief economist to FTC Chair Lina Khan. “The merit of looking at it that way is that it frames it in a way that makes clear the core problem.”
"To understand whether this market share actually gives Apple dominance that it can wield in ways that exclude rivals, the government will need to show that Apple is able to increase prices or degrade quality without losing customers — something you’d expect to happen if customers are able to freely choose the best option out there. “The question is whether users will opt out, can they opt out?” Kwoka says. “Will they opt out for degradation of service? And I think, much like the Google case, I think there probably will be evidence of ways that Apple has limited or compromised some service quality without losing anybody at all.” This would go toward showing Apple’s ability to exercise market power."
"On close inspection, the choice seems deliberate. Kovacic notes the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the New Jersey District Court, has “some pretty good law for plaintiffs on monopolization issues.” Kovacic points to a 2005 decision by the Third Circuit in favor of the government in a case called US v. Dentsply. In that case, the appeals court found that the denture manufacturing company violated anti-monopoly law by using “exclusive dealing arrangements to prevent rivals from getting inputs they need to succeed,” according to Kovacic. "
"Allensworth notes the Dentsply case may prove particularly useful for the government’s argument for Apple’s market dominance. While she says that courts often consider monopoly power to be more in the range of 90 percent market share, Dentsply had 75 to 80 percent market share based on revenue and 67 percent based on units."
Nowhere does it say the case is a joke.
The vast majority of claims are just absurd.
The requirement to use Apple Pay, not allowing alternative payment platforms to access the NFC chip etc... may be worth pursuing, but the vast majority of this lawsuit is a waste of taxpayers money and an abuse of DoJ power.
- Game Streaming - No longer restricted in the App Store
- Messaging Apps - In the UK most people I know use WhatsApp, which is also available in the US, and almost nobody uses SMS anyway so who cares?
- Smartwatches - By the same logic, if I buy a remote for a Samsung TV it must work with an LG TV
- App Store Monopoly - In which case the DoJ also needs to go after Microsoft, Sony & Nintendo for the Xbox, Playstation and Switch game stores
- Secure Mac Experience - It is less secure than the iPhone experience
- Unencrypted Text Messages - See point 2
- Inflated Pricing - Its called premium / luxury products, by the same token a Jaguar costs more than a Kia
- Requires Browsers to run Webkit - So instead we should accept the rise of the Chromium monopoly?
- Subscription Services Increase Cost of Switching - Yes, just as buying an Xbox game makes it more expensive for me to switch to Playstation if I want to play the same game
- Green Bubbles / Social Stigma - Hurt feelings are not the purview of the DoJ
- Long Term RCS Support - Why should apple be required to implement and maintain support for a competitor's standard?
- Beeper Mini Fix - This used fake credentials and the early version required users to provide Beeper with their Apple ID username and password, this is not remotely secure and certainly not any kind of security 'fix'
- CarPlay - No car manufacturer requires users to use CarPlay or Android Auto, but by supporting them users have the choice of a familiar user experience
- Google & Samsung on Premium Smartphone Competitors - Consumers are choosing to purchase Apple, Google and Samsung phones but there is significant market choice including Honor, OnePlus, Asus, Sony and many more
The requirement to use Apple Pay, not allowing alternative payment platforms to access the NFC chip etc... may be worth pursuing, but the vast majority of this lawsuit is a waste of taxpayers money and an abuse of DoJ power.
the DOJ is not happy that Apple will not spy on U.S. Customers for them.
The CarPlay claim is possible the most ridiculous of the many ridiculous claims.
My 2015 Volvo V40 does not have CarPlay but I really wish it did.
Vehicle infotainment systems are notoriously terrible and always have been.
Where CarPlay and Android Auto are available, it is optional and if the user wants to suffer through the Volvo/Ford/Mazda/BMW/etc... user interface they can, but few people want to.
This claim is the clearest example that the lawsuit is not about protecting consumers, it is a punitive attack.
I suspect this is a response to the EU Digital Markets Act, and the DoJ wanting to jump on the bandwagon and be seen to be going after the evil tech giants.
My 2015 Volvo V40 does not have CarPlay but I really wish it did.
Vehicle infotainment systems are notoriously terrible and always have been.
Where CarPlay and Android Auto are available, it is optional and if the user wants to suffer through the Volvo/Ford/Mazda/BMW/etc... user interface they can, but few people want to.
This claim is the clearest example that the lawsuit is not about protecting consumers, it is a punitive attack.
I suspect this is a response to the EU Digital Markets Act, and the DoJ wanting to jump on the bandwagon and be seen to be going after the evil tech giants.
I didn't say the DOJs case was criminal. I was referring to my personal cases where I won motions to dismiss.
This is a shakedown by the government to put pressure on Apple over their end-to-end encryption. That's why there's so much baseless noise in the filing to keep Apple harassed for years to come. They've pressured Apple for years to give up the keys or install back doors. Instead Apple has continued to mature privacy and encryption like the new "Advanced Data Protection" mode for iCloud...just my guess.
When assessing each of the antitrust/anticompetitive behavior matters you need to factor in Apple's dominance in the U.S. market, which the DOJ states exceeds 70% of the "performance smartphone” market and exceeds 65% of the total smartphone market. For example, your Samsung/LG television comparison wouldn't necessarily apply as no brand has a market share in televisions close to what Apple has in this situation.
The issue is the dominance combined with anticompetitive behavior. Dominance alone is not necessarily an issue and the behavior alone is not necessarily an issue, it's both together (among potentially other things) that can bring antitrust scrutiny.
I would recommend you to read the Google vs EU commission antitrust case.
Almost everything the DOJ brings up or touches on seems to follow a similar pattern of legal reasoning. Now if this follows within U.S. legal system is another question
The Google Android European Court Judgment and its Wider Implications | Clifford Chance
www.cliffordchance.com
WHAT A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY!!!
If you don't like the Apple Ecosystem you do not have to buy into it...
If you don't like the Apple Ecosystem you do not have to buy into it...
The part where they say they filed it in New Jersey, because in New Jersey at least they found a case that declared a company a Monopoly with an 80% market share. Apple has a 65% marketshare, unless the court accepts the DOJ's wholly manufactured "market" of performance phones, in which case they have 70%. That's 10-15% lower marketshare than the most lenient case they've found.
This case is going nowhere. But perhaps you can link to the article again to try to convince anybody.
This case is nothing like the EU's DMA. The DMA is law. The DOJ can't quote specific laws that Apple broke, other than a hail mary attempt to prove that 65% of the US Markets, and 20% of the global market, constitutes a monopoly.
Last edited:
As you've said over and over and over and over again while discussing the EU, the US ideas of markets, monopolies and anti-trust are not based on the same underlying principles.I would recommend you to read the Google vs EU commission antitrust case.
Almost everything the DOJ brings up or touches on seems to follow a similar pattern of legal reasoning. Now if this follows within U.S. legal system is another question
The Google Android European Court Judgment and its Wider Implications | Clifford Chance
A point that is in noway certain; and I'd say the DOJ is throwing a hail mary trying to declare Apple a monopoly with 65% US and 20% Global marketshare.
So until that's won by the DOJ, every single other point is pointless to make.
The EU have already said they are not interested in iMessage because it’s not that big in the EU
This is getting brought into law in china because of 5g
Apple obviously can’t separate how iMessage operates so having to implement for the whole world
The CarPlay claims are easily the dumbest parts of this lawsuit. Apple would need super villain type powers to force car makers to adopt CarPlay.
And if you didn’t like Windows in the 1990s, you could've gone with Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, DR-OS, etc. That didn't mean Microsoft should’ve been allowed to engage in anticompetitive behavior.
Just because there is choice in a market does not negate antitrust laws nor mean dominant companies can engage in anticompetitive behavior.
Nothing is certain at this point but I wouldn't call the DOJ's case a Hail Mary. 65%+ (total smartphone market) or 70%+ ("performance smartphone" market) could very well be sufficient from a market share standpoint as there is no clear legal definition of what market share is needed for a company to be declared a monopoly or having monopoly power. Also, market share is not the only factor that goes into making that determination. Court/legal views on this have varied over time.
From the FTC website:
Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
Here's another reason that the DOJ and the Biden administration are being disingenuous trying to say that Apple has monopoly power in the Smartphone market: in 2019/2020, the Biden Administration banned Huawei from the selling in the US Market, thereby wholly eliminating a rival in the marketplace.
Just because something doesn't affect or benefit me directly I don't find it to be a waste. I'm not a farmer nor have connections to one but was invested in the John Deere right to repair case.
Show me 2 or 3 examples in US Anti-trust history where a company with 65% market share was deemed a monopoly.Nothing is certain at this point but I wouldn't call the DOJ's case a Hail Mary. 65%+ (total smartphone market) or 70%+ ("performance smartphone" market) could very well be sufficient from a market share standpoint as there is no clear legal definition of what market share is needed for a company to be declared a monopoly or having monopoly power. Also, market share is not the only factor that goes into making that determination. Court/legal views on this have varied over time.
From the FTC website:
Market Power
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.www.ftc.gov
Also, when claiming that Apple can simply raise prices and lower quality in the market, it should be noted that Apple's top line iphone lists for $1399, while Samsung's similar phone lists for $1419. Apple, if the DOJ is correct, should be able to list their phone for significant premium over the Samsung. The fact that they are priced below the Samsung shows clear evidence against the case the DOJ is trying to make.
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
And btw, it's not very helpful to quote the FTC on what THEY think monopoly power is; they're an agency that has to prove monopoly power before the court. Them quoting lower numbers in their own documents is simply an attempt to move the number lower. But in the end, the FTC doesn't decide on this, the courts do.
Are you serious? Read up on what lead that decision being made. The US isn't the only country to ban the sale of Huawei cellular products.