| sethnintendo said: Dude I just skipped through your post as a term of service agreement. I know nothing what the fuck you are talking about. Article 82 b blah blah blah. |
Long story short: Apple must allow sideloading, because otherwise they control what you can/can't install on your phone.
| JWeinCom said: 1. Oh... so you're just going to ignore everything I said and repeat your argument again? A. Yes. Your point is moot. 2. Oh it's that simple? Wonder why those idiot judges went on and on over 100 paragraphs about it. Dumbass judges analyzed those ten factors (and much more) when they could have said "Derrrrrr... that's an OS and that's an Media Player! THEY'RE DIFFERENT!" A. Because this ruling didn't just concern itself with just the Media Player issue. It also ruled on the inability of Sun Microsystems to have access to their interface and the refusal to provide interoperability information. 3. The court went through those ten factors, and a lot of other things, because the issue is not that clear cut. So, if you think your *ahem* analysis of the situation is enough and that's all you're going to do, then you're wrong, and there's not much to discuss. You should go to those 10 factors and see if that applies in this case. A. These are the ones pertinent to this part of the process. This one was considerably more complex because of the aforementioned issues. 3. No... That's completely not the case. The decision specifically states that it doesn't matter if the customer never users WMP, in which case you'd never have to agree to a second EULA. The decision only discusses licensing on the manufacturer end. The determining factor was not that WMP had a EULA. This isn't in the decision at all, it's just a rule that as far as I can tell you made up yourself. A. The determining factor was that it was a separate product in a separate market which meant its usage conditions were considered supplemental to those of the Windows OS. You could choose not to use the Player, but it wouldn't change the fact that MS was in a dominant position and tied the product to it. "In the contested decision, the Commission considers that that conduct satisfies the conditions for a finding of a tying abuse for the purposes of Article 82 EC (recitals 794 to 954 to the contested decision). First, it reiterates that Microsoft has a dominant position on the client PC operating systems market (recital 799 to the contested decision). Second, it considers that streaming media players and client PC operating systems constitute separate products (recitals 800 to 825 to the contested decision). Third, it asserts that Microsoft does not give consumers the opportunity to buy Windows without Windows Media Player (recitals 826 to 834 to the contested decision). Fourth, it contends that the tying in question restricts competition on the media players market (recitals 835 to 954 to the contested decision). 4. This is not in any way subjecting you to a supplementary obligation. You only will have the obligation if you decide to use another app. And again (you seem to just be ignoring the points) accepting terms on its own is typically not considered a legal obligation. Maybe that's what you'd like it to mean, but it doesn't in the US, and probably doesn't in EU. A. The EC disagreed. "In this second issue, Microsoft relies on two pleas: first, infringement of Article 82 EC and, second, breach of the principle of proportionality. The first plea concerns the Commission’s finding that Microsoft’s conduct in making the availability of the Windows client PC operating system conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of Windows Media Player constitutes an abusive tied sale (Article 2(b) of the contested decision). The second plea relates to the remedy prescribed in Article 6 of the contested decision." Replace with "Apple's conduct in making the availability of the iOS Mobile Operating System conditional on the simulataneous acquisition of the Apple App Store constitutes an abusive tied sale". 5. Dude, you even reading at this point? Because it says nothing about unfair business practices. It says "unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions". "Unlike in US antitrust law, a prime objective of EU competition law is to ensure that dominant 6. This is neither a purchase, selling price, or unfair trading condition. In statutes words are important. You can't just make it say what you want. This statute is also clearly focused on interactions between manufacturers and other business entities and not directly with users. Except this isn't something that stops the EU. Now, it is true you can't just look at this case and change the names and get a ruling, mostly because Apple's infringement is of a different kind and an App Store is a different beast to a media player, but the point stands still. "This being said, EU competition authorities could, at least in theory, challenge such hidden charges through 102 = 82. Now, I did highlight that the EULA was a major issue. That was oversight on my part: the supplemental obligation isn't really in the EULA (Apple makes no mention of automatically agreeing to the Internet Service Terms indeed), but to the elephant in the room: you can't get iOS or an iPhone without the App Store (and install your own). Be aware I'm doing the "creative interpretation" part here just to illustrate. 7. And no this still has nothing to do with anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws are about unfair restriction of competition not "unnecessary hassle". If a product is a pain in the ass to use that's not an anti-trust issue ffs. A. Yeah, it's not just being a pain in the ass, but also being in a legal gray zone. You also ignore another ruling on a similar issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. "The Federal Trade Commission began an inquiry in 1992 over whether Microsoft was abusing its monopoly on the PC operating system market. The commissioners deadlocked with a 2–2 vote in 1993 and closed the investigation, but the Department of Justice led by Janet Reno opened its own investigation on August 21 of that year, resulting in a settlement on July 15, 1994 in which Microsoft consented not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows but remained free to integrate additional features into the operating system. In the years that followed, Microsoft insisted that Internet Explorer (which, in addition to OEM versions of Windows 95, appeared in the Plus! Pack sold separately) was not a product but a feature which it was allowed to add to Windows, although the DOJ did not agree with this definition." "In October 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice also sued Microsoft for violating a 1994 consent decree by forcing computer makers to include its Internet browser as a part of the installation of Windows software. While the DOJ was represented by David Boies, the States were separately represented by New York Attorneys General Alan Kusinitz, Gail Cleary and Steve Houck." "When the judge ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows which did not include Internet Explorer, Microsoft responded that the company would offer manufacturers a choice: one version of Windows that was obsolete, or another that did not work properly. The judge asked, "It seemed absolutely clear to you that I entered an order that required that you distribute a product that would not work?" David Cole, a Microsoft vice president, replied, "In plain English, yes. We followed that order. It wasn't my place to consider the consequences of that." 8. Natural monopolies are legal in the US. You are fully allowed to have a monopoly over your own ecosystem. A business absolutely can have the sole right to sell products over their OS, like Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo do. You can source a game from a brick and mortar store. You can't source software for your iPhone from GameStop. You can access dev mode on an Xbox and sideload whatever will run on the console through a USB or local network. There's a monumental difference, especially because phones and their OSs, unlike consoles, are not "married" to each other (I can grab a rooted phone and install whatever and Android won't care. The OEM can decide whether to make their phones rootable or not, but they don't make the OS. This monopoly is, for one, NOT natural. 9. Further, a valid anti-trust market has to include any potential replacement product. I.e. a company that controlled 75% of the cellophane market was ruled not to have a monopoly because there were other flexible plastic products that served the same function. (United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956)) So, yes, it does matter if people have other phones. Supreme Court has spoken on this matter, and their opinion matters more than yours. A. Their opinion applied to a product with a series of replacements of equal usability, and you missed an important opinion in that case. "I concur in the judgment of the Court and in so much of Mr. Justice REED'S opinion as supports the conclusion that cellophane did not by itself constitute a closed market but was a part of the relevant market for flexible packaging materials." "If cellophane is the 'market' that du Pont is found to dominate, it may be assumed it does have monopoly power over that 'market.' Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition. It seems apparent that du Pont's power to set the price of cellophane has only been limited by the competition afforded by other flexible packaging materials. Moreover, it may be practically impossible for anyone to commence manufacturing cellophane without full access to du Pont's technique.' Majority opinion, 76 S.Ct. 1005." The Supreme Court ruled on this, but it also ruled on Microsoft v the United States for a reason, and that case is far, far closer to the current situation where Apple won't allow competition or other products not on the App Store to be installed on their OS. 10. I'm guessing you have not done any legal analysis before? I have done a fair bit. You are reading a statute, and just kind of making your own rules, vaguely waving at some case you think stands for your point. But it does not. A. Dude, I am (technically was, I quit doing that shit) a lawyer. I did litigation on robocalls and aggressive marketing back in Spain. They were all found to be violations of consumer rights over there (I quit after a different case against the Gender Violence Law ended up being thrown out because I was disillusioned with Court opinion being so overly politicized it disgusted me). I am reading an statute, but the statute can be interpreted. The other thing I'm reading? Jurisprudence. There's a precedent in this field for rulings against a tech company with a dominant position imposing terms and conditions on you that have nothing to do with the product you're getting. 11. So... if you want to continue, you'll have to first look through the factors the court used to determine whether WMP was a separate product, and see if those apply in this case. Then, you'd have to point to some evidence in the decision that a EULA counts as a supplementary obligation. A. This? "The distinctness of products for the purpose of an analysis under Article 82 EC has to be assessed by reference to customer demand. In the absence of independent demand for the allegedly tied product, there can be no question of separate products and no abusive tying. Complementary products can constitute separate products for the purposes of Article 82 EC. The fact that there are on the market independent companies specialising in the manufacture and sale of the tied product constitutes serious evidence of the existence of a separate market for that product." There is independent demand... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple https://protonmail.com/blog/apple-app-store-antitrust/ Cydia is saying the same thing I am right now! 12. Because otherwise one of us is doing actual legal analysis (the court's decisions say that the statute means this...) and one of us is just talking out of their ass (well I personally think the statute means this). Except that we've been through this: laws can be interpreted by the judges. They have before. To me, it feels you're refusing to interpret the law because you don't think it's specific enough, which is the point of making generalizations in any Civil Code: the judge can ultimately decide what constitutes or not an offense if the law provides enough flexibility for it. Right now, we have two rulings whose fundamental ruling is a straight order to a company with a dominant position (and dominant itself is up to interpretation) cannot tie an OS and a piece of software together if their functions are not complimentary, and the App Store is not complementary but supplemental. Do you honestly think I get this stuff out of my arse? This is one of those things I actually specialized in! If anything, you haven't read up on the precedent, ongoing processes and situations where the law has had to be interpreted because there had to be a ruling and the law just wasn't up to speed with the present. Or do you get paid by Apple for this? |
Currently Online 
