Apple responds to Antitrust suit...

quote:

---

Apple has an official statement on the DoJ's lawsuit:

At Apple, we innovate every day to make technology people love--designing products that work seamlessly together, protect people's privacy and security, and create a magical experience for our users. This lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets. If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple--where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology. We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it.


Apple has also held media briefings and shared information on key facts in the lawsuit. Some highlights:

The DoJ has changed the scope of its case six times due to the results in ?Epic Games? v. Apple and other lawsuits. Several theories were considered and had to be abandoned because of a lack of evidence.
Apple says that the lawsuit won't be successful because it does not get the facts right. It would set a dangerous precedent for government interference in technology, and would make the ?iPhone? less private, less secure, and more vulnerable to malware. The ?iPhone? would not be able to operate as well with other Apple products, and user information would be put at risk.
Apple claims the DoJ wants to turn the ?iPhone? into an Android, and that the case goes after the key features that make the ?iPhone? experience unique.
Apple does not believe the lawsuit has a basis in antitrust law and seems to be suggesting that Apple has an obligation to design its products in a way that would help competitors.
In a recent ruling in the AliveCor v. Apple dispute, the court said that it cannot oversee technology and innovation, and it is not for the court to analyze algorithms.
The DoJ ignored changes to streaming game apps and plans to implement ?RCS?, and Apple says that super apps have always been permitted.
Apple claims the DoJ is trying to fit Apple into the theories that were successful in the antitrust case against Microsoft 20 years back, but Apple does not agree with the parallels. Microsoft had a 95 percent share of the market, and Apple says that business decisions are made to provide consumers with maximum privacy and safety.
Apple says the DoJ misses that customers are loyal because they are satisfied with their devices and love Apple products.
Apple claims it spent three years looking at whether it made sense to make an Apple Watch for Android, but ultimately chose not to make one because it would be inferior and would have limits impacting privacy and security.

iMessage has not been designed for other platforms because Apple doesn't have a way to verify that a third-party device has encryption and authentication procedures that meet its standards, and that security issues on third-party devices could expose the content of ?iPhone? users' messages, leading to fraud and spam issues.
Apple's Motion for Dismissal
Apple on May 21 filed a pre-motion letter seeking to dismiss the antitrust case from the DoJ. According to Apple, the government's lawsuit is flawed in multiple ways, and has not successfully alleged that Apple is a monopoly power in the relevant market, proven anticompetitive conduct, or demonstrated consumer harm. From Apple's filing:
This case lies well beyond the outer limits of antitrust law. A Section 2 Sherman Act claim can move past the pleadings only if the complaint alleges (1) monopoly power in a relevant market; (2) anticompetitive conduct; and (3) anticompetitive effects. [...]

This complaint fails on all three fronts. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the type of conduct at the core of this case--namely, Apple's decisions about how and whether to grant third parties access to its platform--does not give rise to Section 2 liability as a matter of law.

The complaint also nowhere connects the restrictions it challenges to any anticompetitive effects in the smartphone market. And regardless, far from being a monopolist, Apple faces fierce competition from well-established rivals, and the complaint fails to allege that Apple has the ability to charge supra-competitive prices or restrict output in the alleged smartphone markets, let alone that it has the market share necessary to establish or infer market power.

Following the pre-motion letter, the DoJ will need to respond by May 30. From there, the two parties will have a conference with Neals. After that, the full motion to dismiss will be filed, but this is not expected until mid-June at the earliest.

---