I’m a lawyer so I get this. Full disclosure, I’m not an anti-trust lawyer, but I am an Apple shareholder. Maybe to far in the weeds for twitter, but what is the legal precedent for saying that iOS is a market unto itself based on what % of gaming revenue it collects?
-
-
Replying to @protonperson @TimSweeneyEpic
[1/2] Well that is kind of the point :) We don't have much in the way of legal precedents for controlled hardware because there haven't been many cases in the modern context of ubiquitous single-company-controlled cell phones. These _will_ be the precedents :)
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
[2/2] So Apple v. Pepper was about _who_ could sue - and it was a narrow victory for iOS _users_ in that it was 5-4 that they had standing. Now Epic v. Apple is a very clear-cut case that can go to SCOTUS about whether iOS constitutes a "market" or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TimSweeneyEpic
Appreciate the detailed response and citation to cases. I think that’s a first for Twitter Pepper + Illinois Brick are procedural cases abt standing, but what of the substance of the “iOS is market” claim? What is the theory, given so much on iOS can be and is sold elsewhere?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @protonperson @TimSweeneyEpic
[1/2] Well, again, this _will be_ the case that decides if it is a market :) Well, that, and the continuing class litigation post Apple v. Pepper, since that case was only on standing, and found in favor of the users. But, if you want to know how markets are defined...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
[2/2] ... the answer is that it is very complicated, and you can easily spend your week doing nothing but reading the precedents :) I don't know what the best primer is, but Googling for a second, here is a survey paper: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2137&context=facsch_lawrev …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Of course the caveat there is that it is from 2007, so it is prior to a number of modern anti-trust cases decided in the last decade. Also, it is worth noting that Epic's suit is in California as well, and brings claims under state law as well as federal law...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
... and I know nothing about California state law, so I have no idea what other market definition precedents there might be in that line of cases. It could mirror the Sherman Act exactly, it could be completely different, I have no idea. California often does their own thing :)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
But as an aside, I would just add that market definitions for anti-trust are not just about whether someone could go do something completely different (buy another type of phone, etc.). They are more holistic analyses about whether price pressure can be unduly exerted.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
To draw an analogy, _physical_ geographic regions are often considered in traditional anti-trust market definitions. One could clearly draw an analogy to _virtual_ geographic regions...
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
So just like "well just move out of Illinois" isn't a definitive answer for invalidating a claim against an Illinois monopoly, "just sell your iPhone and buy an Android phone" isn't a definitive answer for invalidating Apple's monopoly on iOS software.
-
-
Which brings me back around to where I started, which is to say that a court must decide whether iOS software is its own "market", and how they do that will involve many factors, and I am very happy Epic is asking them to do that, so we can all know what the law is on this front!
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
This is the most accessible and clarifying analysis of the situation I’ve read so far. Thanks!
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.