DOJ Lawsuit Against Apple is Headline Grabber But Poses Limited Near-Term Impact (techcrunch.com) 60
An anonymous reader shares a report: The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Apple Thursday, accusing the company led by CEO Tim Cook of engaging in anti-competitive business practices. The allegations include claims that Apple prevents competitors from accessing certain iPhone features and that the company's actions impact the "flow of speech" through its streaming service, Apple TV+.
However, even if the DOJ proves any of the allegations, it is highly unlikely that Apple will face material changes for years, as history shows that such lawsuits often take a significant amount of time to reach the trial, let alone a resolution. The DOJ's ongoing case against Google, filed in 2020, only went to trial in 2023, with no remedies or financial implications expected for up to two more years.
This is not the first time Apple has faced legal action from the DOJ. In 2012, the agency sued Apple for conspiring with publishers to increase ebook prices, a lawsuit that was not settled until 2016. "Precedents suggest that resolution of the complaint will take three to five years, including appeals," Bernstein analysts wrote in a note.
However, even if the DOJ proves any of the allegations, it is highly unlikely that Apple will face material changes for years, as history shows that such lawsuits often take a significant amount of time to reach the trial, let alone a resolution. The DOJ's ongoing case against Google, filed in 2020, only went to trial in 2023, with no remedies or financial implications expected for up to two more years.
This is not the first time Apple has faced legal action from the DOJ. In 2012, the agency sued Apple for conspiring with publishers to increase ebook prices, a lawsuit that was not settled until 2016. "Precedents suggest that resolution of the complaint will take three to five years, including appeals," Bernstein analysts wrote in a note.
Large, weak lawsuit could set unwanted precedents (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but a lot of the arguments in the DoJ lawsuit seem really weak. See https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com] Clearly this case will test legal definitions and interpretations on antitrust and related law. Apple will not only hire the best talent to defend itself, but it will also seek to set precedents on the interpretation of antitrust law as matters of law. Thus I suspect the DoJ "bowl of spaghetti" will end up setting a lot of precedents in ways that a stronger, more focused action would not.
well the EU has said they need to chnage and the c (Score:2)
well the EU has said they need to chnage and the core fee may lead to an other fine if they don't remove it.
Re: (Score:2)
Those EU actions are also subject to judicial review. See the failure of the EU actions on taxeshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%27s_EU_tax_dispute The Fat Lady has not stopped singing on this, but the EU adminstrative decisions have not done well in court.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL as well, but some of the claims just seem bizarre to me. "Restricting the flow of speech" on their 7% market share streaming service? Really? Complaining about green bubbles? It feels like parody at times
I'm also really curious to see how the strategy of redefining the market to be "high performance smartphones" and focusing on revenue instead of market share will pan out. Taken to its logical extreme, the first argument would seem to establish bad precedent if allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
it is probably written by a former Blackberry employee now working for DOJ.
hey don't make your product in a way that makes others look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL as well, but some of the claims just seem bizarre to me. "Restricting the flow of speech" on their 7% market share streaming service? Really? Complaining about green bubbles? It feels like parody at times
I'm also really curious to see how the strategy of redefining the market to be "high performance smartphones" and focusing on revenue instead of market share will pan out. Taken to its logical extreme, the first argument would seem to establish bad precedent if allowed.
The AppleTV thing seemed extra especially far-fetched.
And Garland using typical Internet Forum terms like "Apple Tax"? Pretty telling that this lawsuit was ghostwritten by someone with an axe to grind, like Epic.
I sure hope enough of the Judicial Branch exists to Summary Judgment this legal detritus into the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Re: (Score:2)
The green bubble thing is actually a reasonable complaint, and a fairly textbook example of market leverage. I suspect the DOJ might prevail on that one. The ebook pricing one has a logic that does make sense but the DOJ would (imho) likely fail that one simply because Apple just arent a big player in that field, even on iphones. I dont really get their complaint about apple TV though. I cant really see that one succeeding.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but a lot of the arguments in the DoJ lawsuit seem really weak. See https://appleinsider.com/artic... [appleinsider.com] Clearly this case will test legal definitions and interpretations on antitrust and related law. Apple will not only hire the best talent to defend itself, but it will also seek to set precedents on the interpretation of antitrust law as matters of law. Thus I suspect the DoJ "bowl of spaghetti" will end up setting a lot of precedents in ways that a stronger, more focused action would not.
Yeah.
Garland using inflammatory terms like "Apple Tax", and completely skipping the fact that MMS Data Decimation of Images and Videos is done by Carriers, not Apple, tells me that this lawsuit was likely thrown fully-formed over the transom by some entity with an axe to grind (like perhaps Epic) ; rather than by a dispassionate analysis of the applicable facts and law.
Re: (Score:2)
But Apple already announced — in 2023 — that it will add support for RCS message users to interoperate with iMessage ones.
IANAL, but next time I get pulled over for speeding, I'll try and tell them I planned on slowing down.
Shutting the barn door after the horses left (Score:3)
This is why they need to step in when they are looking to buy a company to expand there reach instead of AFTER they buy it, integrate it, and then say wow they are a monopoly we need to break them up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious: What acquisitions has Apple done that you would subject to this review, in a way that would prevent Apple from arriving at the situation it's at now? Seems to me most of what Apple has done has been through in-house R&D and small-scale acquisitions that wouldn't rise to the level of "If you buy this company, it will totally warp the market." (And the linkage of R&D expenditures to stock buy-backs in the DoJ lawsuit makes no sense; one could argue Apple has been incredibly efficient a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious: What acquisitions has Apple done that you would subject to this review, in a way that would prevent Apple from arriving at the situation it's at now? Seems to me most of what Apple has done has been through in-house R&D and small-scale acquisitions that wouldn't rise to the level of "If you buy this company, it will totally warp the market." (And the linkage of R&D expenditures to stock buy-backs in the DoJ lawsuit makes no sense; one could argue Apple has been incredibly efficient at its in-house R&D to produce its products. Contrast Apple's Apple Vision Pro R&D investment with Meta's R&D in the same general product line.)
This "Complaint" was obviously ghostwritten. Probably by Epic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
prove it shill
Can't prove it; don't have the resources.
But, just like the Russian Spy/Whistleblower who fed the Republicans all the "Proof" about the "Biden Crime Family", perhaps this will eventually come out.
Time will tell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so its lie to protect apple gotcha
You're sick.
instead of suing Apple (Score:2)
I have both an android and iphone and they both suck and i am sure there are many others that feel the same way
Re: (Score:2)
One moreanti-competitive thing that Apple doe (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If any of you have ever tried to go through an account recovery with Apple, Apple REQUIRES that you have either an iPhone or iPad to get a recovery code. Now, think about this for a moment, you can't use e-mail, or a SMS message to get the code, it is an Apple-only code push that will not work with Android, or a non-Apple device. You can't even use another iMac or Macbook, you MUST have an iPhone or iPad to get the code. That almost forced going all-Apple, phones as well as computers, just in case you need to unlock a device.
You can do it over the phone (voice) with Apple tech support. I helped a friend in that exact situation.
They just need enough proof that "you" are "you".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of that changes the fact this was Apples abusive business practice for a long time, causing a lot of people to lose money, time, and the absolute frustration it caused. Apple should be sued for this, even if it's not how it works today. It's just one of many examples of how Apple abuses their customers and the market.
You are just going to keep beating that dead horse.
And as the late, great comedian Norm MacDonald said: "There's no reason to beat a dead horse; except for the sheer joy in doing it!"
Re: (Score:2)
nothing to see here move along
apple isnt doing anything its everyone else
you wont even entertain the facts ; narcissistic blind apple worshipper
what a troll
Re: (Score:2)
yes yes all these anti competition issues are "beating a deadhorse"
nothing to see here move along
apple isnt doing anything its everyone else
you wont even entertain the facts ; narcissistic blind apple worshipper
what a troll
Apple isn't doing anything that every one of their competitors isn't.
Such is Capitalism. An increasingly dirty word. . .
Re: (Score:2)
but keep your head up apples ass, its a paycheck
Re: (Score:2)
quite obvious to others that they are doing somthing different and something wrong.
but keep your head up apples ass, its a paycheck
Yeah, just like it's obvious that Apple caused the Amazon Fire Phone to fail!
You are just sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when does Android force all installed browser apps to use the Chrome browser engine? Oh, they don't? No, they certainly do not. Apple forces all browser apps installed on iOS to use Safari. That's FAR WORSE than what Microsoft did to get sued for antitrust violations by simply bundling IE with Windows. Apple is getting bitchslapped and you feel personally attacked, have fun choking on Tim Apple's dick, fanboi.
Re: (Score:2)
>Apple isn't doing anything that every one of their competitors isn't.
Since when does Android force all installed browser apps to use the Chrome browser engine? Oh, they don't? No, they certainly do not. Apple forces all browser apps installed on iOS to use Safari. That's FAR WORSE than what Microsoft did to get sued for antitrust violations by simply bundling IE with Windows. Apple is getting bitchslapped and you feel personally attacked, have fun choking on Tim Apple's dick, fanboi.
Apple doesn't force Safari, you simpleton. It requires WebKit as the Rendering Engine. And they have a damned good Security Reason for that.
No one can vet the amount of code in a Renderer the size of Gecko or Blink or $RANDOM_LIBRARY at anywhere near the frequency that just those TWO Browsers submit "Updates". No one. Apple knows this. And so does anyone else with more than two functioning brain cells.
So, Apple just made a decision to concentrate on making WebKit as safe and performant as they could; especi
Re: (Score:2)
Typical know-nothing fanboi response. If Google were allowed to, they would definitely use their own browser engine on iOS rather than have Safari forced on them. There's zero technical reason why Apple has to force Chrome on iOS to use the Safari engine - none, zero, zilch. The ONLY reason they do this is anti-competitive practices, and that's exactly why they ar
Re: (Score:2)
>Apple doesn't force Safari, you simpleton. It requires WebKit as the Rendering Engine. And they have a damned good Security Reason for that.
Typical know-nothing fanboi response. If Google were allowed to, they would definitely use their own browser engine on iOS rather than have Safari forced on them. There's zero technical reason why Apple has to force Chrome on iOS to use the Safari engine - none, zero, zilch. The ONLY reason they do this is anti-competitive practices, and that's exactly why they are getting bitch-slapped because of it.
NO, "sEcUrItY" is not a reason. Chrome is far more secure than Safari ever will be.
>No one can vet the amount of code in a
Apple doesn't vet shit, it's all automated, and it's all pointless. There's plenty insecure iOS apps that do nefarious shit in the app store. Chrome's browser engine wouldn't be one of them if they were allowed to have it in the app store.
https://www.bitdefender.com/bl... [bitdefender.com]
Safari is the laughing stock of the web development world, it's a shit browser with proprietary Apple bullshit in it, and notably lacking a lot of modern API features, specifically because Apple wants to force people to write native apps for their app store so they can take 30% of all transactions. It's a pattern of anti-competitive business practices. It's fucking abusive, and you're riding on Tim Apple's dick.
Typical Hater bullshit. Same tired tropes.
Didn't address even one of my points.
And it's WebKit, and it's an entire Open Source Framework that is used in several places in iOS and in hundreds of thousands of Apps by Apple and who knows how many Developers. They seem to get along just fine. Does it have issues? Does Gecko? Howabout Webkit-Forked Blink?
Answer truthfully, or STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right - I hate anti-competitive bullshit that Apple has been abusing for decades. I also hate fanbois like yourself who are so deluded they base their identity on a corporation. I actually feel bad for you.
> And it's WebKit, and it's an entire Open Source Framework that is used in several places in iOS and in hundreds of thousands of Apps by Apple and who knows how many Developers. They seem to get along just fine. Does it have issues? Does Gecko
Re: (Score:2)
> Typical Hater bullshit. Same tired tropes.
You're right - I hate anti-competitive bullshit that Apple has been abusing for decades. I also hate fanbois like yourself who are so deluded they base their identity on a corporation. I actually feel bad for you.
> And it's WebKit, and it's an entire Open Source Framework that is used in several places in iOS and in hundreds of thousands of Apps by Apple and who knows how many Developers. They seem to get along just fine. Does it have issues? Does Gecko? Howabout Webkit-Forked Blink?
>Answer truthfully, or STFU.
I don't have to answer any of your nonsense - Apple has abused everyone they can for decades - it's a pattern of abuse, and they are getting rightly held accountable for it - and you're here crying about it because your whole identity is under assault, lol, kiddo, you need to get a personality that isn't just "aPpLe fAnBoI".
You're right about one thing: You don't have any answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cry harder fanboi. I'm sure sucking harder on Tim Apple's cock will make you feel better.
Boy, you Haters ALL seem to do a lot of fantasizing about Sucking Cock!
Perhaps you should get together!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cry harder fanboi. I'm sure you also enjoy riding Tim Apple's cock. Imagine shilling for a 3 trillion dollar company. Get a life, loser.
Get a Boyfriend, Hater!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liar. Stop being a complete ass and hiding behind a keyboard all to protect a soulless company. No wonder people consider all apple user to be stupid assholes
Learn some grammar, Bot.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm don't think that has any bearing on this case, but it's dumb enough that I would like to complain.
AppleTV Hampers Free Speech?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
How?
Because they canceled The Problem With Jon Stewart?!?
I sincerely hope all the DOJs arguments are this cogent.
Oh lord no it's a *huge* impact (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
lol this is obviously a parody account now.
Certainly a Parody Post, at least!
Re: (Score:2)
Poe's Law is hitting hard with this one. I honestly can't tell if you're serious or sarcastic.
I do believe serious anti-trust enforcement would help with inflation, but I'm skeptical that this is the signal that they're getting serious.
We have multiple studies (Score:2)
Inflation is currently 3.4% you cut that in half and you get 1.7%. so if you just enforce the existing antitrust laws and you make sure the courts don't cheat and prevent you from enforcing those laws then yeah you will get inflation below 2%. That's just how the math works out and is no arguing with it.
The catch to this is the courts are currently p
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what you're saying here... I very much want anti-trust enforcement for these reasons and more. I'm just unconvinced that this case is going to make corporations sit up and take notice.
Near-term effects? (Score:3)
Of course, there are near-term effects. AAPL dove 3.8% in the four hours after the lawsuit announcement. That's about $100 billion in capitalization lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, there are near-term effects. AAPL dove 3.8% in the four hours after the lawsuit announcement. That's about $100 billion in capitalization lost.
I'm frankly surprised the equally-stupid Wall Street Lemmings didn't cause even more ridiculous damage!
Re: (Score:2)
apple cultist truly do hate everything but apple.
Pathetic
Re: (Score:2)
wow even wall street is stupid now.
apple cultist truly do hate everything but apple.
Pathetic
Wall Street is the Ultimate in Herd Mentality.
I'm certainly not the first one to notice that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually apple cultist are the Ultimate in Herd Mentality
iPhones rule (Score:2)
This is all about the "Green messages" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about far more than just one abusive thing Apple does, it's about a pattern of abuse. I for one don't care about the "green messages" or Apple TV, what I care about is the forced Safari browser on all iOS browser apps. Change that and this is a huge win for developers, it's game changing.
That plus the inability to side load apps, and the "one store" rule. All the other stuff is less important to me. But it all shows a pattern of abuse, as you say.