- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kavanaugh sides with the class action trial lawyer protectors on SCOTUS
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:58 am to I B Freeman
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:58 am to I B Freeman
quote:
The justices did not address the merits of the plaintiffs' case against Apple, but the ruling allows the case to advance through a district court.
Normally I would agree that litigation is out of control, but Apple and the other tech giants are acting like the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. The SCOTUS got it right in this particular case especially since they did not rule on the merits of the case and just allowed the case to advance and let the legal system work.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 11:01 am
0
Posted on 5/13/19 at 10:59 am to TBoy
quote:
Well, actually, Kavanaugh isn't much of a scholar. What we will all see over time is that his mental weakness will make for some strange and possibly disruptive opinions.
That's always been my knock on Kavanaugh. He doesn't have the intellectual horsepower to sit on the Supreme Court.
He went to Yale for undergrad and his JD, you cant be fricking serious....
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:00 am to I B Freeman
quote:
He expanded the use of the Sherman Anti Trust Act allowing it to be applied to third parties.
Clearly, he argues that he doesn't view Apple as definitively a 3rd party here so, your red herring is noted and ignored.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:01 am to LSUFanHouston
Of course he did.
You bought developer A's app on Apple's store and now the SCOTUS says Apple is responsible for any monopolistic practices Developer A engages in??
Give me a break. You can't be for that.
You bought developer A's app on Apple's store and now the SCOTUS says Apple is responsible for any monopolistic practices Developer A engages in??
Give me a break. You can't be for that.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:01 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
All he, and 4 other justices did, is say, hey, let's let the case proceed and see where it goes.
Moreover, he clearly did NOT expand Sherman because he said that this case "could" allow companies to structure transactions to avoid anti-trust laws.
He's basically saying that maybe Apple is NOT a 3rd party alone here.
Which, of course, will be determined at trial
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:03 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Of course he did.
I mean, if you aren't going to read your own link.......
quote:
The Supreme Court had ruled in 1977 that only "direct purchasers" of products have standing to bring antitrust lawsuits.
In his decision, Kavanaugh rejected Apple's argument that it was the app developers, and not the company operating the App Store, that sold the programs directly to users. "Apple’s theory would provide a roadmap for monopolistic retailers to structure transactions with manufacturers or suppliers so as to evade antitrust claims by consumers and thereby thwart effective antitrust enforcement," Kavanaugh wrote.
You can think he's wrong, but lying about what he said is just lazy.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:04 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Of course he did.
You bought developer A's app on Apple's store and now the SCOTUS says Apple is responsible for any monopolistic practices Developer A engages in??
Give me a break. You can't be for that.
All this did was rule it could go to trial, where all the shite you are saying in your little bitch fit will be discussed. Actually learn what you are posting about before reacting like a child, you are making yourself look like an idiot.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:05 am to ShortyRob
Are you saying Gorsuch and Thomas are wrong???
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:05 am to I B Freeman
quote:
They don't limit access or create a monopoly.
This line is patently false. They do limit access of apps, such as GAB, by pulling them from their app store.
If you are the sole marketplace and exclude an item, then yes, you are limiting access..
They will argue that some apps violate their TOS of their marketplace and therefore as just a platform, they are protecting their product. They leave out the gaping hole in that argument in that they also do not allow non-certified by Apple apps to work on their devices.
This would be like having a TV in the 1950s that only got a specific channel and then refusing to add those new channels when approached unless they did as you told them regarding content. The technology as a platform cannot be used to throttle the applications without being labeled as a monopoly. They are dictating market conditions by approving or not approving apps, knowing full well that there is no reasonable recourse.
In many ways Appls and the iPhone has gotten so big that they have lost their ability to claim that there are reasonable substitutes. When you fall into that basket, historically you are going to either bend over backwards to ensure that your actions are not monopolistic in nature or get broken up.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:05 am to Muleriderhog
quote:
All this did was rule it could go to trial, where all the shite you are saying in your little bitch fit will be discussed.
And, Kav SPECIFICALLY did NOT say
quote:
Apple is responsible for any monopolistic practices Developer A engages in?
One has to question IB's ability to read at this point
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:06 am to I B Freeman
quote:Nope.
Are you saying Gorsuch and Thomas are wrong???
I'm saying your characterization of what Kav says are his reasons is wrong.
This just in. Sometimes, people of similar ideologies come to different conclusions. Whowouldathunkit!
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:07 am to ShortyRob
quote:
One has to question IB's ability to read at this point
He's really making himself look like a fricking moron right now. I guarantee he didnt even read the ruling.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:07 am to Muleriderhog
Apple essentially takes ownership of the various apps as they vet and either allow or disallow it to be installed on their products while taking a 30% commission on each sale.
The app developers essentially act as independant contractors to Apple as the company will not allow the product to be sold without their approval.
The app developers essentially act as independant contractors to Apple as the company will not allow the product to be sold without their approval.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:08 am to Jjdoc
quote:
I like the decision. Sets up the future vs tech that are monopolies.
This is my first reaction also
Willing to be convinced otherwise
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:08 am to laxtonto
quote:
If you are the sole marketplace and exclude an item, then yes, you are limiting access
They are not the sole marketplace for GAB. You can buy a droid and run it.
I have a Windows machine simply to run Access. Is that monopolistic? Of course not.
You know they don't have to have any independent develop apps on their phones.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:09 am to I B Freeman
I can't imagine how difficult life would be if I approached EVERYTHING I don't agree with that happens politically as the greatest catastrophe known to mankind.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:10 am to Y.A. Tittle
Anyone know what's going on with RBG? She was on her death bed awhile back and now literally hear nothing about her.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:11 am to Muleriderhog
quote:
He's really making himself look like a fricking moron right now. I guarantee he didnt even read the ruling.
From WP link.
A couple of things.
1. Apple says
quote:which is just fricking laughable on its face.
The iPhone giant said it only acted as the intermediary, providing a storefront where consumers found and purchased the apps they later installed on their phones.
2. Still, Kav specifies
quote:Hell, maybe Apple shouldn't have gone with such an absurd fiction in their argument.
“The sole question presented at this initial stage of the case is whether these consumers are proper plaintiffs for this kind of antitrust suit,” he said. “We conclude that the answer is yes.”
As for Gorsuch.........even he didn't take issue with Kav directly, but rather said basically, "meh, Apple can change their shite and avoid this anyway"...........hell, they are arguably BOTH right!
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:11 am to ShortyRob
I understand completely what Kavanaugh is saying but it does not change in the least that he is saying it is ok to pursue the store for the actions of the developer under anti trust laws.
That is just wrong.
That is like saying back in the day that the independent gas station owner could be sued under anti trust laws because he was reselling gas from Standard Oil.
That is just wrong.
That is like saying back in the day that the independent gas station owner could be sued under anti trust laws because he was reselling gas from Standard Oil.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 11:12 am to BuckyCheese
quote:
The app developers essentially act as independant contractors to Apple as the company will not allow the product to be sold without their approval.
Not unlike developers for Google or MSFT.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News