The lawsuit seeks to upend a major part of Apple’s business.

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.

  • Telodzrum@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    4 months ago

    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.eeEnglish
      01·
      4 months ago

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

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        4 months ago

        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.eeEnglish
          01·
          4 months ago

          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.worldEnglish
            1·
            4 months ago

            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.eeEnglish
              01·
              4 months ago

              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