Hacker News Reader

Comment by supermatt | Hacker News Reader

> To simplify it as much as possible, the Beverage vs Apple case establishes a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal government. So, the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair.

That is nonsense. A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.

View on HN

IANAL so this specific case notwithstanding, that sounds like a gross overgeneralization of the Supremacy Clause, which at least in interpretation is largely constrained to the powers that the Constitution gives the federal government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

It literally says, in the link that you have posted: "The Supremacy Clause is essentially a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law."

Keyword there is “certain”.

This has not been true since the mid-1900s. Federal courts considering claims based on state law are bound by state court precedent. Even the US Supreme Court.

Antitrust law is a federal issue.

Apple prevailed with respect to the federal antitrust claims in Epic v Apple. Apple lost on the California antitrust claim, a California issue. California courts are the authority on California issues.

As per FTC v. Phoebe Putney, unless the californian policy is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed" the injunction should be trumped by federal law. Based on the beverage ruling alone it would seem that there is no such policy.

I don't particularly feel like debating this as I am not familiar with the case - i am simply pointing out the error I quoted as given in the article.

I’ll leave this conversation now. You fundamentally do not understand the procedural posture of this case because if you did you would understand that there is no federal law at issue here. This injunction is based on a federal court’s interpretation of state law that has since been completely rejected by the relevant state’s courts. You seem to lack the necessary legal education to even discuss the legal arguments being advanced.

As I said, i am not familiar with the case, just pointing out the issue with the article.

Edit: Given your stealth edit, I would suggest you check your attitude rather than calling others education into question.

Given your stealth edit, I can’t help myself but to respond.

The statement that you’re not familiar with the case was an edit added after I posted. Whether or not what the article says is correct (it’s ambiguous), what you said is not. Your post said:

A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.

This is flat out an incorrect statement.

If you say that you're leaving the conversation, there's no need to immediately follow it up with an attempt to get the last word in, especially not in the form of multiple attacks on someone else.

In fact, there's no need to announce it at all. Simply leaving the conversation would be respectable behavior. Repeatedly attacking others is not respectable behavior.

For what it's worth, your posting seemed quite competent and informed, and would have stood well had your repeated personal attacks not diminished it.

Note that since you said you're leaving the conversation, I don't expect a reply to this, and I wouldn't begrudge you for ignoring it. Indeed, I will assume good faith and trust that you will keep your word... this time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com