DOJ is suing Google and a lot of people think it could be broken up

[CarlBar]

Just now, Gamer Schnitzel said:

The only people that can stand up to Google is the EU. If America knows what's good for them they would invite the European Court of Justice and give them jurisdiction over Google.

 

Googles getting dragging through the indian courts, and given the potentiol size of that market  i'd say they can push too, but the EU does have some advantages right now.

[Vishera]

23 minutes ago, Gamer Schnitzel said:

The only people that can stand up to Google is the EU. If America knows what's good for them they would invite the European Court of Justice and give them jurisdiction over Google.

The thing is that what Google is doing is illegal in the US, always was. 

It's just that the US turned a blind eye to most antitrust violations for 22 years.

Apple should be on the chopping block as well.

[Obioban]

6 minutes ago, Vishera said:

The thing is that what Google is doing is illegal in the US, always was. 

It's just that the US turned a blind eye to most antitrust violations for 22 years.

Apple should be on the chopping block as well.

Apple's only monopolistic behavior is on the app store-- where, yes, they should be forced to have competition.

 

Other than that, are they even a majority of market share in any product category?

(a monopoly needing MUCH more than a majority)

 

I have trouble seeing any area Apple should be on the chopping block, other than the App Store.

[Vishera]

4 minutes ago, Obioban said:

Apple's only monopolistic behavior is on the app store-- where, yes, they should be forced to have competition.

 

Other than that, are they even a majority of market share in any product category?

(a monopoly needing MUCH more than a majority)

They are attempting to monopolize the repair of the products they manufacture - Which is a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890:

Quote

Section 1:

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

Section 2:

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony [. . . ]

 

[Obioban]

43 minutes ago, Vishera said:

They are attempting to monopolize the repair of the products they manufacture - Which is a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890:

 

Even assuming that's true (becoming a weaker argument as they increasingly sell parts for repair, rent out their official tools if you want them, and provide instructions), that wouldn't be something where the company is broken up-- just forced to provide increased repairability.

[Sauron]

On 1/25/2023 at 4:06 AM, leadeater said:

And I could be the CEO of Google 

 

Successfully breaking up a company like Google is on the list of near impossible tasks, winning the lawsuit included.

if only though

[leadeater]

43 minutes ago, Obioban said:

Even assuming that's true (becoming a weaker argument as they increasingly sell parts for repair, rent out their official tools if you want them, and provide instructions), that wouldn't be something where the company is broken up-- just forced to provide increased repairability.

Anti-trust is fundamentally not about breaking companies up, it's about ensuring market fairness. The end goal is almost never to break a company up since that is quite the extreme.

[Vishera]

1 hour ago, Obioban said:

becoming a weaker argument as they increasingly sell parts for repair, rent out their official tools if you want them, and provide instructions

Weaker?, Good luck trying to buy replacement boards from Apple,

If your board is damaged Apple won't be the place to buy a replacement from,

And not to mention that Apple uses US customs to seize components meant for competing businesses (claiming they are counterfeit even though they aren't) - It happened to Louis Rossmann, iPad Rehab and many others.

 

They serialize components and if you use a component that didn't come with your phone it may not play nicely and Apple won't give you the tools to "fix" the issue they created for the sake of hindering competing repair services.

 

There is a clear case of anti-trust here against Apple with multiple violations.

[Lightwreather]

Just now, Vishera said:

nd not to mention that Apple uses US customs to seize components meant for competing businesses (claiming they are counterfeit even though they aren't)

Sorry, but wasn't that Samsung Display?

[Vishera]

Just now, Lightwreather JfromN said:

Sorry, but wasn't that Samsung Display?

No, That's a separate case.

A lot of manufacturers abuse anti-counterfeit laws to stifle competition.

[Middcore]

"Many people are saying this" 

[mr moose]

21 hours ago, Obioban said:

 

 

Other than that, are they even a majority of market share in any product category?

(a monopoly needing MUCH more than a majority)

 

 

This is a myth, a monopoly does not need a specific market "Share" to be illegal.  The laws are written that a monopoly is illegal when the company has a market "power" that they can use to force competition from the market or unfairly disadvantage competition in said market.  There is no market threshold.  I.E a product can have 90% of the market share, but if the company that makes it can't do anything that effects any other business then they have no monopoly, conversely if a company has a product with only 30% market share, but with that 30% they can prevent every other business from reaching their own customers unless they agree to specific rules, then that is a monopoly. 

 

So when a company controls enough of any market that they can enforce fees, charges or the price of essential parts then they are enacting an illegal monopoly.  

 

How this relate to repairs and 3d party parts is that everyone is being dictated to on what can be repaired and how much it will cost.   Having experience this first hand (being told my ipad was not repairable and to buy a new one (at A$600) when a 3rd party repairer could fix it for $230),  their policies effect both the consumer and the 3rd party repair shops.   I like to use the automotive industry  as the comparison,  there is not a car part that you cannot buy direct from the manufacturer, and when you can't (because they don;t make it anymore not because they won't sell it to you) you can get a 3rd party part.  The consumer, mechanic, end user is not prevented from getting the parts they need.  There is no reason phones should not be the same. 

 

The day I can walk into apple and order a replacement main board, screen, battery (at a reasonable cost) and take it to a 3rd party repairer is the day I consider they do not hold a monopoly over repairs.