Apple Battles For Role in Google Antitrust Trial, Warning of Serious Risks (courtlistener.com) 19
Apple has filed an emergency motion [PDF] for a stay in the Google antitrust trial, warning that it faces "clear and substantial irreparable harm" if barred from participating in the case's remedies phase. The motion, filed on January 30, 2025, comes after Judge Amit Mehta denied Apple's request for limited intervention earlier in the week.
Apple -- which makes more than $20 billion a year from Google to use the Android-maker's search engine on Safari -- argues that the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) proposed remedy -- which includes a prohibition on "any contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value" --would prevent it from negotiating agreements that benefit millions of users. Without the ability to fully participate, Apple contends it will be left as a "mere spectator" while the government pursues restrictions that directly impact its business interests.
The company asserts that intervention is necessary to develop evidence, participate in discovery, and cross-examine witnesses regarding its market role and incentives. Apple also seeks access to trial records while its appeal is pending, including witness lists, depositions, and discovery materials, to ensure it can respond effectively if granted party status.
Apple -- which makes more than $20 billion a year from Google to use the Android-maker's search engine on Safari -- argues that the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) proposed remedy -- which includes a prohibition on "any contract between Google and Apple in which there would be anything exchanged of value" --would prevent it from negotiating agreements that benefit millions of users. Without the ability to fully participate, Apple contends it will be left as a "mere spectator" while the government pursues restrictions that directly impact its business interests.
The company asserts that intervention is necessary to develop evidence, participate in discovery, and cross-examine witnesses regarding its market role and incentives. Apple also seeks access to trial records while its appeal is pending, including witness lists, depositions, and discovery materials, to ensure it can respond effectively if granted party status.
No, Apple just doesn't want the money to stop. (Score:2, Insightful)
$20 billion is a lot of motivation for Apple to help out Google. And to be honest their relationship has been extremely suspect for a long time. Apple should lose all access to anything google, Google should lose al access to anything Apple, and they should be forced to compete with each other directly.
Re:No, Apple just doesn't want the money to stop. (Score:5, Interesting)
"And to be honest their relationship has been extremely suspect for a long time."
In what way? And how is this "honest"?
"Apple should lose all access to anything google..."
Why?
"...Google should lose al access to anything Apple..."
Why?
"...and they should be forced to compete with each other directly."
Is this how free markets are created? By force?
Yes, Apple simply wants the money to continue and they do nothing for the end user to get this. It's not clear how Apple is the enemy here nor is the case about them. They merely don't want the cash to stop flowing. The Judge would seem right to ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
What's really silly is that they're not selling anything other than a default. The user can switch search engines in seconds if they want to. The vast majority don't. If there were an alternative that were clearly better, presumably they would, so Apple is getting money for doing something that has no obvious downside for its users.
I kind of think that the U.S. government is being a bunch of trolls here, going after big companies for being big, rather than for actual anticompetitive actions. I can think
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Apple simply wants the money to continue and they do nothing for the end user to get this.
Apple actually does do a thing for the end user to get this. Apple provides iPhone OS upgrades free of charge, for example the upgrade to iOS 18 from iOS17 that would traditionally cost several hundreds of dollars. This is an extra $400 or so every 2 years you are not having to pay to Apple.
For example, when Windows XP was released - buying the upgrade from Windows 98 SE to XP Pro cost $199 retail. In today
Re: (Score:2)
That might be the outcome, but Apple should still be granted this motion. They are obviously a seriously impacted party, so they should be able to get party status in the case.
Honestly.. $20 Billion is probably a very reasonable price for the privilege of being top default search engine for iOS. And Apple is not a competitor in the search engine space. So they have need to be able to charge a fair price for the placement; However, they should probably be putting it out for a competitive bid, an
Ironic (Score:3)
I find it ironic that mega-corporation #2 wants to plead its case that mega-corporation #1 should not be broken up without their input.
Yes, Apple you may have to have separate deals with different "new" entities but contractually those previous obligations should more or less continue forward.
When AT&T was broken up people could still make phone calls, you could get your phone fixed, and leased lines still worked but you had new RBOCs [wikipedia.org] to deal with; you just didn't have to pay $5000/mo. for a 4800 baud full-duplex modem anymore and it didn't cost $100 to call your grandma on her birthday.
Will there be disruption to Apple's revenue stream? Possibly. Will they have to pay more because what Google agreed to may be set aside? Possibly. The court will consider your petition, but that doesn't mean Apple will get what they want. Personally, I believe mega-corporation #1 petitioning for a role in the proceedings is exactly why Google's breakup is a good thing. I'm sure deep in the DOJ Antitrust division there's somebody cooking something up for MGC1, MGC2, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
They know they're next whenever we get a regulatory body interested in antitrust action again. They don't like further precedent of the federal government telling them what they can and cannot do in their business.
It should shock absolutely nobody that Apple is trying to pump the brakes here.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not about Google being broken up. This is about Apple being able to charge Google $20Bil to make google the default engine in Safari. Apple _could_ do that for free if they wanted, at least in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter, did you not think a Muli-Billion dollar company wouldn't protect a $20B revenue stream. Google and Apple have existing agreements, those will change and frankly if I were the judge I'd tell Apple to fuck off. This is precisely why there's an anti-trust case to begin with! mega-corporation #1 enters agreement with mega-corporation #2 to block third parties, like mega-corporation #3 from being the default "X" on their platform. That is an anti-competitive practice and it needs to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
mega-corporation #1 enters agreement with mega-corporation #2 to block third parties
Except they didn't block 3rd parties; it's just an advertising slot and a privilege of setting the default behavior. Presumably any other search engine can have offered them a similar price, and Apple would be willing to do it. The other search engines probably just don't care enough about being the default to bid an amount competitive with Google.
Google outcompeting everyone to establish a favorable deal is Not anti
"clear and substantial irreparable harm" (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's claim of "clear and substantial irreparable harm" is obvious. If $20 billion of extremely high-margin profit is subtracted from their $93 billion annual post-tax profit, there would be "clear and substantial irreparable harm" to AAPL stock. The shock to AAPL would go far beyond this week's shock to NVDA and would certainly harm greatly all AAPL executive stock bonuses. Whether this harm also applies to Apple product users is less clear.
Don't worry Apple (Score:3)
If we are actually trust-busting tech giants then Apple shouldn't worry about being left out; they'll get their turn in court soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Alanis says, "Isn't it ironic?" (Score:2)
The highly peculiar situation here is that in an antitrust action brought against Alphabet, they might end up being told by the court to find a less "anticompetitive" way of spending that $20 billion a year, rather than simply continuing to siphon it all towards Apple year after year. In such a scenario, Alphabet isn't really being punished per se... rather, this would be an unheard of opportunity to break contract with Apple without any significant adverse repercussions... because the default settings have