Topic: Anti Trust Suite against Apple - page 2. (Read 2909 times)

This is why it is imperative that actions against Apple be started in multiple jurisdictions, so for example if an Anti Trust case were to fail in the United States a Competition Case could for example succeed in the EU etc. In the Microsoft case after not much success in the US there was a good success in the EU.

While the case above is very appropriate, there is an additional twist here. App developers do not actually need apple to get their apps to market. This "need" actually arises from the deliberate actions of Apple to restrain trade by the use of DRM to prevent an app from a competitive store from being installed on IOS devices. By the way this is not a Bitcoin only issue the restraint of trade on the part of Apple applies to software, ebooks, music etc.

The analogy is perfect. Nobody needs a train to use coal either. You just need the train to get the coal to where it's convenient for you to use it, just like you need Apple to get the app to your mobile device. Railroads don't have competing products in the coal market either.

Read the case I linked. It is sufficient that monopolistic power in one market is used to restrain trade in another market in a way that has a significant effect on interstate commerce. It doesn't matter whether the alleged monopolist has a product in that other market. There are many other reasons a company might have to want to pick winners and losers, even in markets they don't compete in, and the motive for the use of tying to restrain trade is irrelevant. (That's what the quote I pasted means by the words "per se unreasonable" -- doesn't matter why you do it, or whether you will or won't gain from it, it's not a reasonable thing to do. You don't have to prove any particular motive.)

That doesn't mean such a case would succeed. Such cases are very, very hard to win, especially when there are competitors (Android, Windows Phone) and when there's no barrier to entry. See United States v. Syufy Enterprises.

Bitcoin is open source software available to anyone. No one needs an exclusive Apple device to use the Bitcoin software. The day Apple creates something similar to Bitcoin you will have something to argue about. Otherwise, your analogy is meaningless.

Nope.

"A tying arrangement, whereby a party agrees to sell one product only on condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product, or at least agrees that he will not purchase that product from any other supplier, is per se unreasonable, and unlawful under the Sherman Act whenever the seller has sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to restrain appreciably free competition in the market for the tied product, and a "not insubstantial" amount of interstate commerce is affected." - Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, 356 US 1, 1958.

This case was about frieght routing by railroads, which is actually quite analogous to an app market. Businesses need railroads to get their products to market just as app developers need Apple to get their products to markets.

This has nothing to do with anti-competitive practices. Apple is not producing a software like Bitcoin and competing with other software producers for a share of the market. You fanaticism for Bitcoin made you all so delusional that you cannot even understand what are you talking about.

Yes Anti Trust Suites / Competition Bureau Complaints is definitively the way to here, and they do work. A very good example is the Microsoft competition case in the European Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case. This resulted in multiple fines against Microsoft including fines of €860 million and €497 million. More importantly it forced Microsoft to license its interoperability information in a manner compatible with FLOSS licenses including GPL v3 used by the SAMBA project.

A good strategy would be for Bitcoin businesses around the world to launch anti trust suites / competition bureau complaints against Apple in their respective jurisdictions. The more jurisdictions worldwide the better. So for example an Anti Trust Suite in the United States, a Competition Case in the EU, a Completion Complaint in Canada, similar actions in Brazil, Australia, Sweden, etc etc.

We must also keep in mind that Apple's IOS business model has been used to repress virtually every form of human endorse ranging from artistic expression to religion. In fact pick any area where there is even the slightest amount of controversy and there is a very good chance that Apple has repressed both sides.

Edit: This needs to be done in addition to boycotts, jail-breaking and yes even Americans using iPhones for target practice with high powered firearms.

Here's an excellent tool for upgrading an iPhone.

Well yes, this is possible as they have stated no other reason for it's removal.
Now we just need someone who is willing to sue.

I recall in the not to distant past a company like Apple (Micro$oft) was slammed with an Anti-Trust Law suite.  How is this any different?  Apple removes software that it feels competes with it's product lines?

I was going to keep my current iPhone and maybe even upgrade to a new one.  I think I will not switch back to Android, if not immediately in time I will.   I will not buy any more Apple products.