Hacker News Reader

Comment by thaumasiotes | Hacker News Reader

> Something very important to note here is that the comment was made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple agree to be legal bound by another case next year to decide the patent license fee. Apple are arguing that they'll leave the market if the fee is too high. The reality is actually that if they agree to a binding agreement in the current case, and then decide the fee is too high after the case next year and refuse to pay it, they'll be banned from selling iPhones in the UK. Their exit from the market won't be their choice.

I'm having trouble seeing why this sequence:

    Court: pay $X fee or stop selling iPhones.

    Apple: OK, we'll stop selling iPhones.

doesn't represent Apple choosing to stop selling iPhones.

View on HN

Pay x or I'll break your legs.

I think you've gotten your example backwards. If you tell me "Pay $X or I'll break your legs", and I say I'll take the broken legs, and you break my legs -- you really want to argue that that's the decision branch where I wasn't really making a choice?

Of course you were... You could've paid.

Common law has the concept of "under duress". I'm sure other legal traditions have something similar. It is also common sense in the US culture in general that you can't be said to agree to having your legs broken in a situation like that.

While the mythical "homo econominus" may say that there's no difference between "give me $$$ or I'll inflict severe negative utility on you" and "give me $$$ or I'll reduce the positive utility you receive from selling goods by the same amount" by saying it's the same amount of utility in absolute terms in both branches, in practice nobody feels or operates that way, and that's with steelmanning this argument by declining to note all the obviously relevant ways in which this metaphor is a mismatch.

No doubt it's possible to reframe it so it looks like Apple's decision but it isn't really. It's more like;

    Court: Pay $x fee

    Apple: No

    Court: Your punishment is that you're no longer to allowed to sell iPhones

The outcome is the same, but the reality is that Apple really don't want to stop selling iPhones and would never voluntarily stop, so they're not really choosing to if they're legally prevented from doing so.

In your framing, did Apple not choose to say "No"? It's not like they're not aware of the situation -- you're commenting on them talking about it.

The court is providing circumstances. Apple responds to circumstances. But the only way they can respond is by determining what they want to do, and then trying to do it.

Note also that in your framing, unless you believe the court would respond to Apple attempting to pay the fee by saying "no, you had your chance, it's gone now, get out of the market", it's still Apple choosing not to sell iPhones.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com