| > That is not the same thing. The movie studios don't own the theatre. They did at one time, courts end it, but isn't even relevant to my point. You said "There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors." My point is that that is exactly not true. I am rebutting your incorrect assertion. It seems like your playing at moving goal posts, make one argument, then when it's shown to be wrong demand that the it has to meet some unrelated criteria to be valid. You never said "There is literally no monopoly that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors." You said no *business*. You didn't say they had to own all the property, just that it is there property, and to a movie studio, the movie, even as it's being shown in a theater, is there's. They own it and can dictate how it's shown. Except that courts have limited how far those contracts can go. The theater may be the platform to show movies, but the movies are the platform for previews/trailers, no one goes to a theater for the previews. (I mean some of them are cool, but I'm not paying $20 to watch 10 minutes of trailers) I provided multiple examples, but for some reason you tried to find some wiggle room in one example to try and ignore the rest. > No, the judge wasn't wrong but you're misframing the decision to make it fit a situation it doesn't. The judge did not rule that Apple's position on App Store payments was illegal. They ruled that Apple was being anti-competitive for "digital mobile gaming transactions" Have you read the injunction? The one I linked before? It's really really short, it won't take long to read honest. Ok read it now? How often does it mention games? Once? Exactly one use of the word games? What is the word before games? "Epic"? The word after? "Inc"? So the only mention of games is in the name of one of the parties to the litigation "Epic Games, Inc." There aren't even any phrases that could be considered synonyms. No "entertainment software" no "interactive media", nothing of the sort. I'm sorry to be so condescending, but as you accuse me of "misframing" this, you yourself are not understanding what the judge ruled. His injunction has no limitations for what kind of applications this applies to. The injection says "Apple Inc. ... are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from
prohibiting developers from ...". Not "digital mobile gaming" developers, not "mobile gaming" developers not even just "gaming" developers, all developers, all of them, for all types of apps. But what if I just conceded that point, the judge did only rule on games. Ok, then what is the difference between Epic Games' Fortnight and Amazon's Kindle? You said: > because the transactions happen within the game and not simply within the App Store. How is Kindle different? - Fortnight existed as a standalone game before it was an iOS app. Kindle existed as a standalone app before it was an iOS app. - Fortnight had a way to purchase content in game before it was an iOS app. Kindle had a way to purchase content in app before it was an iOS app. - Fortnight users when logged in see purchased items across devices. Kindle user when logged in see purchased items across devices. What is it that makes games different? How is Kindle only inside iOS, despite being a service for about 8 months before the Apple App Store can into existence, but Fortnight is not only inside iOS? Are the Fortnight games servers run by Epic Games the magic difference? But Kindle books are delivered by Amazon not Apple, why are Amazon's servers not as magic as Epic's? > The rules aren't in place to protect shitty business decisions. They're there to prevent monopolization and Apple doesn't have a monopoly. This is a common misconception, but antitrust is not anti-monopoly, monopoly is not a requirement to violate anti-trust laws. One portion of antitrust is about regulating existing monopolies, another is about preventing new monopolies, but other parts cover other practices like price fixing, collusion, one of these is called vertical restraints. Apply requiring that all apps on their OS use their payment system could be viewed as a vertical restraints. |
You're not arguing in good faith. A movie theatre would not allow anyone to advertise for another movie theatre within their building. That's the point. Everything else you said is irrelevant. I'm not moving any goalposts. You're twisting what I'm saying to argue something that I'm not. It doesn't have to be a monopoly. I never said it had to be a monopoly for the movie theatre example. And I'm not even sure where you're going with the trailers. A movie theatre's competitor would be another theatre or theatre chain, not a movie studio.
>Have you read the injunction?
Yes. I literally quoted the judge's decision. That's why I put that phrase in quotes. That's what quotes are for - to denote that you're repeating something someone else said. It's even bolded in the injunction.
>Ok, then what is the difference between Epic Games' Fortnight and Amazon's Kindle?
The difference is the market for which the competition is being evaluated. The judge's injunction specifically states that the only reason this injunction qualifies is because "most App Store revenue is generated by mobile gaming apps, not all apps". The judge did not rule that Apple was breaking anti-trust laws around vertical restraints but on anti-steering - that they were forcing Epic to hide information that would enable a choice. The judge ruled that, because Epic can make money off the game in other ways besides In-App purchases, that the only fault in Apple's processes was in forcing Epic to hide information about those other ways of monetization and that they were free to not allow In-App Purchases that can be made outside the platform. Again, to quote, "for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds in favor of Apple on all counts except with respect to violation of California's Unfair Competition law (Count Ten) and only partially with respect to its claim for Declaratory Relief".
Additionally, "Apple's termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable".