re: Kavanaugh sides with the class action trial lawyer protectors on SCOTUS

quote:

---

They will only pay if they are found liable...

---

quote:

---

Why are you digging such a hole on this?

---

They have defense cost regardless.

Why are you digging the hole?

Should you be held liable for the possible monopolistic practices of the accounting software you use for client work?? Of course not but that is what the SCOTUS is making possible it seems. Should I be able to say LSUFanHouston charged me too much his software is a monopoly and he owes me money?

quote:

---

People against this ruling don't realize this is the exact same thing as letting car manufacturers have exclusive rights to the parts and repairs on their products, while letting them be the only source to get both. It is anti capitalism. Could you imagine having to only deal with the ridiculous prices of dealerships when repairs or parts are needed? That is this. Now people can sue and let courts decide on what the rules will be.

---

Not really. Are you saying that a manufacturer wouldn't have the right to say they have "approved alternative part manufacturers"? Apple is more like the manufacture that puts the initial product features, and has 3Ps that they partner with for certain parts out of the gate.

Why buy a Benz if you want it to act, and look like a BMW?

What you are complaining about is equivalent to Apple telling companies that they can not build phone sleeves that fit their product. Ie...I wouldn't be able to type this on my Macbook using a Logitech keyboard, and I wouldn't be able to use my Logitech mouse to press 'submit'...

quote:

---

Is downloading an app, changing the phone, the way an engine modification changes the engine?

I don't know. A very qood question. All the more reason to allow this lawsuit to proceed, so we can get some legal opinion on these issues.

---

In a way yes. it has the ability to "manipulate" the OS, and that info is provided to a 3PAD to be able to have their APP work with Apples "engine" and other parts.

I don't know the details or care to look them up, but compare the # of Apple apps that have complaints about it not working properly with the different parts of the phone VS Androids, and you can get a glimpse into why Apple does what it does. Apple is a better overall product, because of what they do. Why are we going to force them to diminish that?

quote:

---

How so??? How is that laughable?

---

I can't honestly believe you're going to sit in here and act like WalMart and the Apple App Store are even vaguely similar.

And no, I'm not even going to ATTEMPT to explain it if you genuinely are THAT far off in knowledge. Just not going to for you

quote:

---

Do you understand what this lawsuit is about?

---

The SCOTUS ruling was about standing and overruled a previous ruling from the seventies.

quote:

---

Today’s decision was the latest chapter in a dispute that dates back several years. It began when the iPhone users filed their lawsuit in a federal trial court in California, which threw the case out. The lower court relied on a 1977 case called Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, in which the Supreme Court ruled that triple damages for violations of federal antitrust laws are not available to an “indirect purchaser” — a plaintiff whose claim isn’t that he was personally overcharged, but instead that the defendant overcharged someone else, who passed the extra charge on to the plaintiff. In the trial court’s view, that’s exactly what happened here: App developers paid Apple a 30 percent commission and then passed that 30 percent mark-up on to the iPhone users, which meant that the iPhone users were not direct purchasers from Apple.

---

quote:

---

Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the ruling, in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Gorsuch criticized as overly simplistic what he characterized as the majority’s “revisionist” view of Illinois Brick. The iPhone users’ claims rest “on just the sort of pass-on theory that Illinois Brick forbids,” Gorsuch concluded. But if all that matters is whether the plaintiff transacts directly with the defendant, Gorsuch suggested, then the court’s rule “exalts form over substance,” and Apple will be able to get around the test by restructuring its contracts so that the iPhone users pay the app developers, who in turn pay a commission to Apple. If the court is going to “begin whittling away” Illinois Brick “to a bare formalism,” Gorsuch complained, it should do so after a more thorough airing of the issues, rather than in a case in which even the plaintiffs affirmatively declined to ask the court to overrule its precedent.

---

quote:

---

Why are you digging such a hole on this?

---

Because like with Trump and IB's TDS, IB has a pretty bad case of KDS also.

We get it. Kav doesn't appear to be as reliably conservative as Gorsuch.

quote:

---

The SCOTUS ruling was about standing and overruled a previous ruling from the seventies.

---

Huh. Yeah, you know, all the cell phone apps that were around in the 70s...

Look... commerce changes. There are new ways of doings.

I mean, me and ShortyRob actually agree on something for once. That should tell you how obvious this is.

I would not be surprised if this case goes to trial and Apple wins.

But I don't think the precedent cited is enough to prevent the lawsuit from moving forward. It may be enough to allow Apple a victory, depending on a weighing of all merits of the case.

Also, in Illinois Brick, the case was about pricing. Here, the case seems to be more about access.

quote:

---

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.

---

Is there a news story that states that Apple is doing this to control content? Because last I checked they do it to control integration security by the 3PADs on their Platform.

You are saying that a grocery doesn't have the right to pull chicken/fruit/veggies/etc that have been contaminated. Or a store doesn't have the right to pull a product from it's shelves that don't meet the standards they are wanting to portray by their company. So this says that it is right that a grocery can be held fully responsible for a customer getting sick from bad product that a store wasn't aware of or responsible for their quality control. Which I understand is the way it has been for yrs, but letting that be the norm has had its negatives and positives.

Your example would be more on the cable company not the TV manufacture. The TV mfg would have the right to keep their dials at 1-13, and not add that 2nd 14+ dial. If they refuse to move with the market then they get hurt for it by consumers for being outdated. They can adjust as they please. The cable company also has the right to say yes/no on the channels coming thru depending on the contract negotiations.

But Apples way of doing it, is what people say they want...."high quality control"...and that comes at a cost. Apple gets 30% of the 3PADs charge to the customer. Simple business.

Plan and simple this is about people that want easier/cheaper access to the Apple platform, and scotus allowing this to become the norm is not for the best.

quote:

---

The plantiffs are alleging that Apple App Store, itself, is a monopoly

---

Sounds like this could make Twitter and Facebook nervous.