5,879 karma · joined March 19, 2019
Apple’s cert petition at the Supreme Court was basically the argument that’s it’s unfair that a lawsuit from one developer would prevent its anti-steerage language from adhering to any developer.
So, to summarize, the relevant market is this dispute was the mobile game market (not an iPhone-specific market like Epic wanted), Apple does not have a monopoly in that market, and Apple doesn’t need to charge less in the App Store or for in-app purchases. But, due to California law, Apple cannot prevent developers from informing consumers that lower prices are available outside of the app.
Their legal defense will come in the form of a response to the complaint and a motion to dismiss.
It's not anticompetitive to never allow a third-party text message application in the first place.
Put another way, Apple cannot worsen access for competitors on its platform absent a procompetitive justification. But they have no duty under U.S. antitrust law to provide equal access in the first place.
Microsoft got in trouble for tying its monopoly in operating systems to OEMs preinstalling Internet Explorer. Essentially, they told OEMs that they would not sell them Windows unless they agreed to help Microsoft kill Netscape. That's a very different kind of antitrust complaint than what the article describes, which is Apple building seamless connections between its hardware and services while offering second-tier connections for competitors.
The Xcode angle is interesting, but likely not important enough for the Justice Department to sue over. Hardware for developers is negligible in the grand scheme of things.
Also, Microsoft won that case on appeal and then settled with a much friendlier administration.
Of course, this is all being filtered to us from rumors told to journalists who are not subject matter experts. We can better assess any similarities when the actual complaint is filed.
I'm not sure if current U.S. antitrust law condemns this behavior from Apple. In general, companies have no duty to deal with competitors. It can be anticompetitive to worsen access for competitors from a prior baseline without a procompetitive justification, but it's generally not anticompetitive to never offer access at parity with your own products (self preferencing) in the first place.
While these are reasonable complaints, it might take new legislation from Congress to remedy. I'm looking forward to seeing the actual complaint when it is filed so we can assess whether the Justice Department is working within existing frameworks or is instead attempting to push the envelope of antitrust law without Congressional authorization.
Still, this article is helpful in that is tells us what areas are the focus of the government's case (notably: nothing about the App Store).
The NLRB, SEC, FTC. These cases belong in a real Article III court. Once we solve this issue, people can’t raise it in bad faith anymore to weasel out of consequences. Every litigant wants to win, and I agree that they are raising these issues to attack proceedings that they might lose on the merits.
I believe it was Justice Kagan who said last term that there are a finite number of Constitutional issues with agency structure. Let’s just fix them all now.
For me, I would rather have a jury of my peers and the protections of the Federal Rules of Evidence than go before a kangaroo agency court where my prosecutor was chosen by the same people who will ultimately decide my case (and in some agencies they also chose to bring the case in the first place; talk about prejudging the issue).
That neatly solves every issue.
Making substantive policy is fine as long as Congress has given them an intelligible principle to guide them - which they have: the NLRA.
The NLRB is not immune to democratic control; the General Counsel of the NLRB is removable at will by the President and Congress can override any rule or precedent.
However, it is legitimately a problem that the NLRB and other agencies have their own internal court where you have no right to a jury trial, the rules of evidence are stacked against you, and the ultimate decision is heavily dependent on the partisan makeup of the current Board (Democratic boards routinely overturn precedent established under Republican boards and vice versa). There is a case at the Supreme Court this term that may begin to remedy that.
The remainder of AWU is people who have put their name on a spreadsheet but have not voted in a union via an NLRB election. The only way to have the legal right to force an employer to bargain with you is to have an NLRB election (or the employer voluntarily recognizes the union).
Google has a legal duty to negotiate in good faith with the 41 Cognizant employees now that the NLRB has found them to be a joint employer. That's true regardless of how small the bargaining unit is. The NLRB found that Google controls essential features of these workers' jobs, which means Google needs to appear at the bargaining table. However, Google is allowed to appeal that finding before it takes effect, which will likely take at least a year in the Federal courts.
The likely reason Masimo made the strategic choice to sue for for unjust enrichment instead of damages is that damages are limited to the license fees Apple would have paid in the alternative world where they sought a license. That's a relatively small amount of money compared to what Masimo is no doubt hoping to extract by blocking Apple Watch imports.
By the way, a court would not have enjoined Apple from importing or selling the Apple Watch. Masimo has a very small domestic consumer-facing industry putting their patents into practice and they they already license their patents to others, demonstrating that they could do so here as well. The ITC was the only place they were likley to get that remedy.
U.S. Customs will decide on January 12th whether the redesign is sufficient, and if it is sufficient Apple can continue its imports. Maismo would then need to head back to the ITC to argue that the software redesign still infringes their patents. That could easily take another year.
If Apple succeeds in either way, they will be able to draw out the litigation long enough for a full hardware redesign in the Apple Watch 10.
Masimo actually did sue Apple in Federal court for damages, but the judge declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked 6-1 in favor of Apple.
Indeed, Apple has a reputation for going scorched earth on patent trolls and trying to invalidate your entire patent portfolio after you poke the bear (Masimo has already had several of their patents invalidated in the course of their litigation with Apple).
Similarly, a judge in one circuit may look to the decision of a different circuit court when their own circuit has yet to rule on an issue, even though a different circuit’s opinion does not bind them.
In this case, however, the issue was ultimately put before a jury which doesn’t produce the kind of written decision that other judges would look to when deciding similar cases.
Notably, this quarters $221 million in profit was not driven by unrealized gains.
Alaska Air Group, Sealed Air Corp, and SolarEdge are out.
Uber reported net income of $221 million on $9.29 billion in revenue in the third quarter, and in the past four quarters altogether it generated over $1 billion in profit.