US sues Apple for illegal monopoly over smartphones
US sues Apple for illegal monopoly over smartphones
The lawsuit seeks to upend a major part of Apple’s business.
The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.
You're viewing a single thread.
lol this is going to go nowhere
I don’t think so. EU did push through with reform, the US will join sooner or later.
The EU passed a massive, sweeping law. This is a federal lawsuit in front of an infamously conservative and pro-business Supreme Court.
Little will come of this.
SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases -- they don't have the expertise and single-issue cases which don't present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.
And Apple will appeal and appeal until they get to SCOTUS where they will win that appeal
Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.
The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.
This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.
I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.
Insulting me personally rather than attacking my argument is an ad hominem:
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.
Saying one is wrong, or doesn't know what they're talking about, is not ad hominem. Maybe it's a language thing, but to me saying someone is wrong is equivalent to saying their argument is wrong. And saying someone is out of their element/depth is the same as saying they're wrong on the subject, aka their argument is wrong.
You don’t just say that I was wrong. You used a personal insult, and you even admit that you could have chose too not use an insult but chose to anyway, repeatedly. And, still, rather than use any evidence to make your argument, you can’t stop yourself from continuing to insult and bully.
And YOU don’t get to choose what is insulting to ME. That’s some serious gaslighting DARVO shit.
They're saying that you're out of your depth because your argument does not align with reality, i.e., you have no idea what you are talking about. If they said "You have brown hair" or "You like listening to Swift" and invalidate your argument because of that, it would have been ad hominem.
In this case, they just looked at what you said and noticed that you should learn more about it instead of acting knowledgeable.
See, you’re describing how they said a personal insult, then you’re describing how they could have, instead, simply described what I said factually, without using an insult, and then you’re calling these two very different things the same while treating me like an idiot, expecting me to not notice the difference. Which is also insulting.
It doesn’t matter how many times people try to explain that a very obvious personal insult isn’t one because it very clearly is. and repeating the insult only digs you deeper into that hole, as does repeatedly attempting to gaslight me.
Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.
The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.
Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.
At least it happened.
If it was all Blue States, if probably agree, but it does include a few Deep Red States with North Dakota, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. That makes me cautiously optimistic.
Because???
If was all Blue States, with a Democratic Federal DOJ, it's quite possible that it's just political messaging. With a mix of Blue & Red States, it's still possible it's messaging or a (rare) common-enemy, but it's more likely they think something's actually there, and they don't want to waste their time playing nice with the "other side".
Bet you're not quite right on that.