Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Anonymous <anon@anon.net>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Justice Department files antitrust suit against Apple
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 20:01:40 -0400
Organization: Mixmin
Message-ID: <uu2c14$fchq$1@news.mixmin.net>
References: <xn0ojl66a1q9nyc005@reader443.eternal-september.org>
 <CpWdnX1RvOSC-2P4nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <utlovo$3f8ji$1@dont-email.me> <utmgfo$3kegg$1@dont-email.me>
 <-bCcnWvtgscvkWL4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <utr6hs$3r204$1@news.mixmin.net> <_yiMN.122726$SyNd.9398@fx33.iad>
 <utt7kt$1ejr$1@news.mixmin.net> <2bBMN.104112$_a1e.62699@fx16.iad>
 <utvmsf$82hi$2@news.mixmin.net> <faKMN.127073$6ePe.118556@fx42.iad>
 <utvv1a$8nhi$3@news.mixmin.net> <EcZMN.460845$vFZa.92320@fx13.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:01:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.mixmin.net; posting-host="c4af4a3027e8317d29ea238d8aa6bb2f616aa3fc";
	logging-data="504378"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@mixmin.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <EcZMN.460845$vFZa.92320@fx13.iad>
Bytes: 5738
Lines: 92

Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2024-03-26 22:07, Anonymous wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-26 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-03-25 21:16, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-03-25 02:45, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tyrone wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You keep saying that, but it makes no sense. And AGAIN, what laws is 
>>>>>>>>> Apple not
>>>>>>>>> abiding? Because YOU don't like Apple does not mean they are breaking any
>>>>>>>>> laws.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apple is a consumer products company.  They are selling directly to 
>>>>>>>>> consumers.
>>>>>>>>>   How do you sell consumer products to consumers (who line up to buy your
>>>>>>>>> products, BTW) AND be "anti-consumer" at the same time?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Apple truly WAS "anti-consumer", then NO ONE WOULD BUY THE PRODUCTS. 
>>>>>>>>> Do you
>>>>>>>>> understand simple logic?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This DOJ case is all based on competitors whining that it is too 
>>>>>>>>> difficult for
>>>>>>>>> them to make money selling software/whatever to Apple's customers. Well 
>>>>>>>>> boo
>>>>>>>>> hoo. Apple is like 25% of the global market for phones and PCs. Try 
>>>>>>>>> selling
>>>>>>>>> your stuff to the 75% of the market.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Or feel free to create your own phones/tablets/desktops/ecosystem and make
>>>>>>>>> your money from your own products. Not just leeching from other company's
>>>>>>>>> products.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> U.S. anti-trust laws exist to protect consumers.  Not competitors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not a lawyer, but the government can claim that Apple is engaging
>>>>>>>> in conspiracy to restrain trade and commerce, which is broadly illegal
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apple has plenty of competition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the law, that doesn't matter as far as conspiracy is concerned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and does not require Apple to actually be a monopoly. And forget suing;
>>>>>>>> Tim Cook himself can be arrested and tried criminally for this if the 
>>>>>>>> [AAA] <---
>>>>>>>> government ever decided to actually enforce the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROFL.  At least you got the "I'm not a lawyer" part right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 15 U.S. Code § 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. Every person who shall make
>>>>>> any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to
>>>>>> be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof,
>>>>>> shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or,
>>>>>> if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years,
>>>>>> or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
>>>>>
>>>>> That "if a corporation" part sailed right over your head ... [AAA] above
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheesh.  Don't state what you don't understand, and certainly don't quote 
>>>>> what you understand even less.
>>>>
>>>> You can't throw a corporation in prison, genius.
>>>
>>> Exactly what I was pointing out, you dunce.  I didn't make the assertion that 
>>> Tim Cook can be arrested [AAA] above.  That was you.
>>
>> Antitrust law applies to INDIVIDUALS as well, and the PLAIN TEXT OF
>> THE LAW I quoted above says Tim Cook can be thrown in PRISON for up
>> to TEN YEARS if he, and/or Apple under his direction, engages in
>> contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.
> 
> Which will never happen.  While Apple may be found negligent in some way, they 
> (and Cook) will not be found to be committing criminal conspiracy in any way.
> 
> If this is too confusing for you, I suggest you look up an easy case such as 
> Enron where deliberate fraud took place (and people ended up in prison).
> 
> You really do not understand the paragraph you cited.

No, you don't understand it. Just because the government refuses to
enforce the law as written does not mean it can't, and it certainly
doesn't change the law's meaning. I'm not saying Cook is guilty of
conspiracy, but if the government found evidence of such by Apple
under his direction, he could face criminal penalties as an individual.