Infinite in All Directions is still one of my favorite science books.
"Science and religion are two human enterprises sharing many common features. They share these features also with other enterprises such as art, literature, and music. The most salient features of all these enterprises are discipline and diversity. Discipline to submerge the individual fantasy in a greater whole. Diversity to give scope to the infinite variety of human souls and temperaments. Without discipline there can be no greatness. Without diversity there can be no freedom. Greatness for the enterprise, freedom for the individual- these are the two themes, contrasting but not incompatible, that make up the history of science and the history of religion."
"Infinite In All Directions" is right here in my current reading stack next to Loren Eiseley's "All The Strange Hours"... they live on through their written words and all the lives they touched.
You can't just advertise whatever loony accusations your link goes to (I didn't click) and absolve yourself of responsibility. That's the old "I'm just asking questions..." shtick.
Ben doesn't explicitly draw this line, but it seems Apple is betting that courts reward orientation towards privacy in the face of monopolistic actions.
It's not just the courts. There's tremendous consumer frustration with the invasiveness of Facebook and Google tracking. Since Apple doesn't really make that much on being a service provider, relative to FB/Google, it gives them more room to make a strong play for the privacy market.
Being "the big tech company that doesn't stalk you like a creepy ex" is a potentially huge market.
There is no general frustration of the invasiveness of Google outside of the geek community. In general, people do have privacy concerns over Facebook but even then, few leave and even some of them just go over to Instagram.
> Being "the big tech company that doesn't stalk you like a creepy ex" is a potentially huge market.
Genuine question - has anyone actually reliably demonstrated a pro-privacy position to meaningfully increase sales in the tech industry? Doing the opposite certainly doesn't seemed to have harmed the financial success of many so far...
Sure Apple are very pro-privacy and I applaud them for that, but if their approach was, say like Googles, I think they would probably still be selling largely the same number of iPhones.
Perhaps I am wrong, and let me be clear I like Apple's position. I just don't know today that it translates to the masses as a sales driving proposition.
I don’t know of any numbers, but it is certainly a lockin factor. I once thought about android, now I never would as long as apple has this privacy stance. I have talked to others who feel the same.
Again, no hard numbers, but it’s at least common enough that others I speak to routinely agree its important to them.
There haven't really been pro-privacy options before. So no, no one has proven that it meaningfully increases sales. And it'll take years for it to show up in sales.
Or it's just providing value through differentiation that can't be achieved by competitors without cannibalizing their revenue model. Seems like smartphones offer almost the same feature set, everything is easily copied/improved/iterated.
Except tying is one of the few antitrust things that is still per-se illegal, so it won't matter.
(IE it's illegal regardless of reason).
If it got to SCOTUS, it would probably end up under rule of reason as with anything else, but i'd also suspect Apple would lose in that circumstance.
Their goal for consumers could be achieved without the tying - issue guidelines as to what you will require in terms of privacy for any third party identity service used in IOS apps.
Offer Apple sign-in as just one thing that meets those requirements.`
Either facebook and google change to meet your requirements, which achieves your consumer goal.
or people move to Apple sign-in, which also achieves your consumer goal.
Tada, no direct tying.
This is just one example, but it's hard to see a path for them to win on that one in court. Their best hope is really a good definition of their market and finding of no market power.
If a court finds otherwise, their odds of winning here seem ... low.
>Except tying is one of the few antitrust things that is still per-se illegal, so it won't matter.
Nope. Courts have been subjecting tying to rule of reason analyses for a while now.
Illinois Tool Works:
>Over the years, however, this Court’s strong disapproval of tying arrangements has substantially diminished. Rather than relying on assumptions, in its more recent opinions the Court has required a showing of market power in the tying product. Our early opinions consistently assumed that “[t]ying arrangements serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition.” Standard Oil Co., 337 U. S., at 305–306. In 1962, in Loew’s, 371 U. S., at 47–48, the Court relied on this assumption despite evidence of significant competition in the market for the tying product. And as recently as 1969, Justice Black, writing for the majority, relied on the assumption as support for the proposition “that, at least when certain prerequisites are met, arrangements of this kind are illegal in and of themselves, and no specific showing of unreasonable competitive effect is required.” Fortner Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Steel Corp., 394 U. S. 495, 498–499 (Fortner I). Explaining the Court’s decision to allow the suit to proceed to trial, he stated that “decisions rejecting the need for proof of truly dominant power over the tying product have all been based on a recognition that because tying arrangements generally serve no legitimate business purpose that cannot be achieved in some less restrictive way, the presence of any appreciable restraint on competition provides a sufficient reason for invalidating the tie.” Id., at 503.
>Reflecting a changing view of tying arrangements, four Justices dissented in Fortner I, arguing that the challenged “tie”—the extension of a $2 million line of credit on condition that the borrower purchase prefabricated houses from the defendant—might well have served a legitimate purpose. Id., at 510 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 520 (opinion of Fortas, J.). In his opinion, Justice White noted that promotional tie-ins may provide “uniquely advantageous deals” to purchasers. Id., at 519. And Justice Fortas concluded that the arrangement was best characterized as “a sale of a single product with the incidental provision of financing.” Id., at 522.
>The dissenters’ view that tying arrangements may well be procompetitive ultimately prevailed; indeed, it did so in the very same lawsuit. After the Court remanded the suit in Fortner I, a bench trial resulted in judgment for the plaintiff, and the case eventually made its way back to this Court. Upon return, we unanimously held that the plaintiff’s failure of proof on the issue of market power was fatal to its case—the plaintiff had proved “nothing more than a willingness to provide cheap financing in order to sell expensive houses.” United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc., 429 U. S. 610, 622 (1977) (Fortner II).
And overturning the per se rule for patents:
>After considering the congressional judgment reflected in the 1988 amendment, we conclude that tying arrangements involving patented products should be evaluated under the standards applied in cases like Fortner II and Jefferson Parish rather than under the per se rule applied in Morton Salt and Loew’s. While some such arrangements are still unlawful, such as those that are the product of a true monopoly or a marketwide conspiracy, see, e.g., United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 145–146 (1948), that conclusion must be supported by proof of power in the relevant market rather than by a mere presumption thereof.[Footnote 4]
>Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product.
"Nope. Courts have been subjecting tying to rule of reason analyses for a while now."
This is not quite right. You are right that i removed some nuance, which, imho, would not matter much in this particular case but might matter in others.
Your cites are about the presumption of market power, which is not the same as rule of reason analysis in full. It's definitely part of it.
It's definitely true courts are "less per-se".
But even illinois tool works is about whether the market power presumption could be rebutted, not about whether the effect was to restrain trade. They still only require a showing of market power.
Your cites even say that, with the illinois toolworks one explicit saying that if they can show market power, partial summary judgement on liability should be granted.
The more interesting part of the rule of reason is about the latter (restraint of trade) more than the former (market power)
" Further, the Court retained the per se rule against tying contracts but raised the threshold showing of market power that plaintiffs must make to satisfy the rule's requirement of "economic power" (see Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1985).[2]".
The square cite from ITW is "Held: Because a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product. "
(IE they just have to show market power)
You can see basically all courts have followed this since.
Edit: My above comment was originally mistakenly copied from the Federal Circuit, not the Supreme Court decision.
>The Court held that in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product. While some such arrangements were still unlawful, such as those that were the product of a true monopoly or a market-wide conspiracy, that conclusion had to have been supported by proof of power in the relevant market rather than by a mere presumption thereof. The court recognized that many tying arrangements, even those involving patents and requirements ties were fully consistent with a free, competitive market.
I mean, at some point you may just have to trust me since I specialize in this area of law, among others :)
The state of the world on tying is specifically "If you can show these X things, it will be per-se illegal, regardless of reason". If you can't, it won't be, and will be analyzed under rule of reason.
But i understand if you want to think otherwise.
(And i'll admit i'm too lazy to go look up recent appeals court cases on tying for you right now)
I updated the original comment. It's pretty clear.
>Congress, the antitrust enforcement agencies, and most economists have all reached the conclusion that a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee. Today, we reach the same conclusion, and therefore hold that, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product.
Again, you are repeatedly confusing market power and the rest of per-se illegality vs rule of reason.
Per-se vs rule of reason is much more about whether you can show that there was a pro-consumer reason to do something, or whether it is illegal regardless of reason.
It happens that a lot of per-se illegality in antitrust also did not require a showing market power, either (which is what changed in case you are citing). All you had to show was an arrangement exists at all, regardless of market power.
As i've said several times now, and even the cases you cite confirm, while you must prove market power (and a small number of other things, actually) in per-se tying, IF YOU DO, it is illegal.
It does not matter if you were doing it for a pro-consumer reason or not, the court will not hear evidence on it.
I'm really unsure why you are armchair lawyering this.
Russ Roberts invited them both to discuss their differences on econtalk- Nassim promptly declined. Until that happens, I think the twitter feud is without value.
yes. lessons will improve your riding no matter how long you've ridden, and they are KEY at the beginning stages. so many movements are counter intuitive
