In the United States, we have a legal precedent called "The Rule of Reason". This says that while some things are illegal for a monopoly to do, others may or may not be illegal depending on whether consumer harm has occurred.
-
-
So in _our_ antitrust law, the question would be whether Apple's monopoly on software for its hardware has helped or harmed consumers. It is likely the Supreme Court will decide this question in the future.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
If you would like a preview of what it will sound like when the Supreme Court in the US reviews this issue, you can listen to the oral arguments in Apple v. Pepper, which you can listen to here: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-204 …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Unfortunately, this case is only an appeal on a motion, so does not deal with directly deciding a threshold question (called "Illinois Brick", it is a precedent that controls which parties can sue for damages in antitrust cases).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
But it will at least give you some perspective on the issue. If you would like to hear a case that deals directly with the issue involved here (which is called "tying" - when you condition the purchase of one thing on the purchase of another)...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
... you can listen to Eastman Kodak, which is a case whose significance people argue about, but it is the most recent case on monopolistic tying: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-1029 …
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I have no insight into South Korean law, or how their antitrust system might work. So I'm afraid I can't help explain why they made the decisions they did. But I am very happy with the outcome, since personally I think everyone benefits when they own the hardware they buy.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
(As a side note, if you follow the legal theory here, you can also see why it is a harder argument with something like a Sony Playstation 5 as it is with an Apple iPhone. The consumer gets something in exchange for the PS5 lock-in: discounted hardware...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
So a company like Sony can Rule-of-Reason argue something like, "Yes, consumers pay more for software because of our monopoly on PS5 software. But, they get cheaper hardware as a result."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Apple, on the other hand, cannot make this argument, since they overcharge people for their hardware _and_ the software, so the consumer strictly gets higher prices, period. There is no benefit to be found anywhere.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
This sort of thing matters for Rule of Reason analysis, as do a lot of other factors, etc. But "consumer harm" is the US standard, so it is important to keep that in mind when thinking about the outcome here.)
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.