Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:13 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,686

Brett Kavanaugh and Apple Anti-Trust


Color me surprised but something I wouldn't have expected to ever read is
Quote:
in a majority opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh and joined by the courtís liberal bloc
It's an interesting case, and one that potentially could overturn a great deal of our existing software sales models. I can't blame Apple for fighting it as hard as they can, even if I find a lot of their reasoning nonsense.

But the idea that Brett Kavanaugh has anti-business tendencies seems unusual. People have depths. It's all preliminary, of course, in that the ruling is just to allow the case to move forward, but it's still an interesting example that people - no people - are all of one kind or the other.
  #2  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:20 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,331
Yeah, I was surprised to read that, too. Curious to see how he develops as a justice.
  #3  
Old 05-14-2019, 12:38 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Color me surprised but something I wouldn't have expected to ever read is

It's an interesting case, and one that potentially could overturn a great deal of our existing software sales models. I can't blame Apple for fighting it as hard as they can, even if I find a lot of their reasoning nonsense.

But the idea that Brett Kavanaugh has anti-business tendencies seems unusual. People have depths. It's all preliminary, of course, in that the ruling is just to allow the case to move forward, but it's still an interesting example that people - no people - are all of one kind or the other.
As you say, it's just a ruling to let the case proceed on the merits. I think if Apple didn't' restrict app purchases to the Apple App store, but everything else was the same, then this ruling would have gone the other way. But because Apple effectively tells consumers they can only buy from them, the markup arrangement they have doesn't seem like enough to insulate Apple from the proximate cause consideration of monopolistic behavior.
  #4  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:30 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
But the idea that Brett Kavanaugh has anti-business tendencies seems unusual.
In my simplistic lay-man's view, perhaps he is siding with the free market, rather than one individual business? I know it is easy to see the Right usually side with a corporation against the consumers, but on principal where would they be expected to come down in a decision between the "free market" vs. an individual corporation?
  #5  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:35 PM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,167
I think it serves to show that Justices aren't the one-dimensional caricatures they're sometimes depicted as. They can all surprise us at times, which is as it should be.
  #6  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:43 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icarus View Post
In my simplistic lay-man's view, perhaps he is siding with the free market, rather than one individual business? I know it is easy to see the Right usually side with a corporation against the consumers, but on principal where would they be expected to come down in a decision between the "free market" vs. an individual corporation?
Yeah, I don't disagree.

But of all the justices I would think would break with the rest of the conservatives I wouldn't have put him at the top of the list. It'll be interesting as hell to see if he remains consistent.
  #7  
Old 05-14-2019, 02:05 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,325
But it's not a ruling that should be characterized as pro market or not. This is about the precedent of private actors bringing suit in anti trust claims, and who has standing to bring suit. I see it more as a statutory interpretation case than anything else. For a case first raised in 2011, now at SCOTUS, this isn't even being addressed on the merits - it has a long way to go.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017