The "interpretation" in this case is just a few skeptical comments made in a hearing by the judge. And her comments mostly seem to address Epic's (dis)honesty in describing its motivation, they are not some deep statement on the foundation of antitrust law. The case is going to a jury trial.
Unless something has changed, we don't actually know that yet. Epic specifically requested a bench trial and Apple has until 5pm today to decide whether they want a jury or not.
So it should be an open and shut case then shouldn’t it? We don’t need things like expensive lawyers, trials, a complete reading of the law and precedents. All we need is a laymen’s summary interpreted by random people on HN...
So this case should be a slam dunk, huh? But you know the actual judge in the case must not have read the website. You should send her a link.
> So it should be an open and shut case then shouldn’t it?
No thats not what I said. I don't think that you haven't actually paid attention to anything that the judge said, or the opinions of the supreme court.
Instead the important question in this trial is based on what the market is defined as, and not the irrelevant stuff that you are bringing up.
That is the important question here.
But it is not at all controversial, that a company does not need to be a singular firm, in order to break anti-trust law.
Thats not controversial. The judges agree with me. The supreme court agrees with me. You are disagreeing with the multiple pieces of case law.
Instead, the question that matters, is what the market is defined as.
So, for example, if the market is defined as "smartphones", then that means that Apple has 50% of the US smartphone market, and therefore there is a good chance that Apple falls under anti-trust law.
If, instead, the "market" is defined as the game console market, as Apple is trying to claim, then the argument gets much harder that Apple would fall under anti-trust law.
So, the question at hand, is, is the market "iPhones", "smart phones", "game consoles", or maybe even "general computing devices".
And depending on which of these market, the iPhone falls under, then apple court either be breaking anti-trust law, or not. But the fact that they don't have a literal, singular monopoly is not the question at hand that matters.
I would really recommend that you read up more on anti-trust law. Because I am not saying anything controversial here.
> But you know the actual judge in the case must not have read the website.
The judge actually agrees with me, not you. She agrees with me, that the important question that matters, is how we define the market. I would recommend that you listen to the trial hearings yourself, if you are able to find them online. You'd understand what I am saying to be true, if you had actually listened to the judge.
I know this, because I listened to the judge, live, say this in the court hearing, that the important part of the case is how the market is defined.
It is really funny that you are not aware of that, that the judge agrees with me on this, and is aware that one of the most important question at hand, which requires the trial, is how to define the market.
There are ways that you can attack this idea that Apple is breaking anti-trust law. But the ways that you are attacking it are not supported by the law, the supreme court, or the judges.
You should read up on the actual important questions at hand, in this case. Because there really are some interesting questions here. Specifically, the question is how the market is defined, which is the important part. But none of the stuff that you brought up are the things that the judges or lawyers care about.
Really not sure why you think that you know more than the supreme court, or the judge in this case. I got my information by listening directly to the judge, live.
If you would actually like to learn what the supreme court has said on the matter (Instead of just trolling, when it is clear that you haven't actually done any research on this issue), then I would recommend you read this link:
This link has actual references to specific supreme court decisions.
But I guess if you are not going to care what the courts says on the matter, which are the literal, ultimate authority on the issue, then I am not sure what to tell you.
You can physically go read the opinions of the courts on this yourself. They agree with me, not you. I am going to trust the opinion of this from actual judges the matter, myself.
But, if you are only willing to do a small amount of research of your own, then the case that I would recommend reading is "Hayden Publishing Co. v. Cox Broadcasting Corp", as well as "Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS" and "Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant"
These cases the judges found that a "party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%". In another one they rejected "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors"
Those are directly from the court cases. They are directly from the judges.
> But, if you are only willing to do a small amount of research of your own, then the case that I would recommend reading is "Hayden Publishing Co. v. Cox Broadcasting Corp", as well as "Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS" and "Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant"
Have you actually read through these cases yourself? None of these are Supreme Court cases, and none of them actually found that the defendant held monopoly power.
The first case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether the defendant actually held monopoly power, but it doesn't look like anything further actually happened (perhaps it was settled out of court).
The second case found that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendant actually held monopoly power and the court therefore affirmed the judgement for the defendant.
The third case found that the defendant only held 20% market share in the correct relevant market and therefore did not have monopoly power.
The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power, not that courts have actually ruled that way before. Furthermore, even if they had, it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit because Epic is not alleging that Apple holds monopoly power in the smartphone market. Instead, they are alleging that Apple holds monopoly power in the specific sub-market of "distribution of apps on iOS devices" which they by definition have 100% control over.
> none of them actually found that the defendant held monopoly power.
This specific comment chain is about the concept of if there is a definite threshold, that a company must be larger than, in order for it to have monopoly power.
> The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power
Yes. That was the point that I was making. That a firm with 50% market share could hold monopoly power. That was it, and I was making no more points than that.
The other person that I was responding too has incorrectly strict definition of "monopoly power", in that he believes that there has to basically only be a single firm in the market, that is backed up by the government, in order for it to have monopoly power.
And thus I have provided definitive evidence, that the courts have held, that his threshold is incorrect.
And I was making no other points, other than to say that it is false to claim that in order to have monopoly power, a company much be "the only game in town", and backed by the government, as the person I was responding to incorrectly claimed.
> it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit
It is relevant, because the courts have not ruled what the relevant market is yet. Even though Epic is initially trying to define the market a certain way, ultimately, the market could be determined as something else.
I agree that there are interesting questions here, to be decided, as to what the market is. But, unfortunately, it is not really possible to have a discussion with someone about the interesting questions, if they are going to spread misinformation on the uninteresting, and completely uncontroversial parts.
At this point, it took me paragraphs and paragraphs, when the original commenter who was engaging dishonestly, and ignoring court precedent and information on government websites, all in order to try and establish an uncontroversial point that they were contesting, which is that a company can have monopoly power, even if they are not the only singular firm in the market.
So you are just going to completely ignore the actual judges that I quoted?
> But, the judge in this particular case
The judges have specifically agreed with me on the issue that I brought, which is that the important issue in the case is the market definition. Please do not try misdirect from what I am specifically saying here.
So, to restate, the important issues in the case are the market definition, and not anything that you brought up. And the judge agrees with me on this, regarding what the important issues are in this case, and do not agree with you on that.
Your argument may have had some legitimacy as a proxy when all were cases that may be similar to what is being argued about Apple.
But now we have something better - a real judge hearing arguments about the facts on the ground. Not just a laymen’s interpretation.
Especially in this particular case, the judge brought up consoles and PCs as Epic’s market and didn’t buy its attempt at defining the market in a way that was convenience.
> a real judge hearing arguments about the facts on the ground
The real judge agrees with me, and not you, and agrees with me that the important question about this case is what the market is defined as.
> the judge brought up consoles and PCs as Epic’s market
So you are now completely agreeing with every single point that I was making, and admiting that you were entirely wrong, and now recognize that I was correct for pointing out that the judge thinks that the important question for this case is how the market is defined?
That is what you are doing for pointing that out, lol. The judge agrees with me that the important points about this case are how the market is defined, and not anything that you brought up.
Every single article quotes the judge as being dismissive of the market being defined as being a manufacturers own devices. She specifically called out the similarities between the iPhone and the console makers.
She at no point showed any sympathy to defining the market as narrowly as the non-lawyers on HN would like it to be defined.
But the point that I was trying to make is, that your original comments, where you tried to disagree with the information posted on those government websites, are wrong.
The information on those government websites, are correct, in that controlling 50% of a market can subject a company to anti-trust law, and this is backed up by the court cases that I posted.
So, on the specific point only regarding the definition of a monopoly, you were wrong, and the government websites are correct.
Since I posted actual links, to judicial opinions, do you now understand why you were completely wrong, in your original definition of a monopoly, and that the government website is correct?
Everything else you are saying now is just an attempt to misdirect from your original, false statements.
> She at no point showed any sympathy
You are misrepresenting my point. What I am claiming is that the judge agrees with me, that the important question in this case is the definition of the market.
And the judge has not at all agree with your statements where you attempted to reject the information that was posted to you, on those government websites.
So, your original statements regarding those government websites were wrong, and the judge in this case has not said that the specific claims on those government websites are incorrect.
IE, your original comments, regarding that information, were wrong, and the government websites were correct. That is the only point I am making.
I'm showing that argument that iOS AppStore is not a monopoly because "If you don't like closed iPhone you can buy Android" is ridiculous.
Of course you have alternative hardware+os that you can use, just like in case of telephony you had alternative hardware (paper) that you could use, which didn't stop US goverment to split AT&T up.
