Technology

59086 readers

3617 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

978

US sues Apple for illegal monopoly over smartphones (www.theverge.com)

submitted 7 months ago by sverit@feddit.de to c/technology@lemmy.world

258 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ANIMATEK@lemmy.world 58 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don’t think so. EU did push through with reform, the US will join sooner or later.

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 50 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

The EU passed a massive, sweeping law. This is a federal lawsuit in front of an infamously conservative and pro-business Supreme Court.

Little will come of this.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 30 points 7 months ago (1 children)

SCOTUS rarely (like ultra rare) gets involved in technical economic cases -- they don't have the expertise and single-issue cases which don't present a Constitutional question are beneath the Court. Cases like this go to judges who have experience in the details of antitrust actions and are well-versed in the economic and marketplace analysis required by the type of action the DOJ is bringing here.

[+] gregorum@lemm.ee -14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And Apple will appeal and appeal until they get to SCOTUS where they will win that appeal

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Dude, you’re out of your element. SCOTUS doesn’t take cases to reverse errors of fact.

The DOJ will lose because we don’t have modern antitrust laws designed for modern industries, not because of anything SCOTUS is going to do.

[+] gregorum@lemm.ee -14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This SCOTUS will clearly do whatever they want. And if all your argument consists of is ad hominem attacks, this conversation is over.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean no they won’t. Also, you being out of your element isn’t ad hominem; it questions the argument. You’re out of your depth on that one.

[+] gregorum@lemm.ee -11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Insulting me personally rather than attacking my argument is an ad hominem:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.

Source

[–] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Saying one is wrong, or doesn't know what they're talking about, is not ad hominem. Maybe it's a language thing, but to me saying someone is wrong is equivalent to saying their argument is wrong. And saying someone is out of their element/depth is the same as saying they're wrong on the subject, aka their argument is wrong.

[+] 0xD@infosec.pub -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

See, you’re describing how they said a personal insult, then you’re describing how they could have, instead, simply described what I said factually, without using an insult, and then you’re calling these two very different things the same while treating me like an idiot, expecting me to not notice the difference. Which is also insulting.

It doesn’t matter how many times people try to explain that a very obvious personal insult isn’t one because it very clearly is. and repeating the insult only digs you deeper into that hole, as does repeatedly attempting to gaslight me.

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago

Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

The EU passed new laws to address new needs. The US is trying to see if they can provide consumer protection with existing consumer protection laws from the past.

Passing consumer protection laws is pretty hard when people don’t vote enough democrats into the senate and house. The GOP hates consumer protection regulation.