Apple Spent $100M In Its Case Against HTC

[beowulf7]

How incompetent are the ones who filed the lawsuit if they only won 1 out of 10 patents? And those lawyers made $100M for that? What a horrible investment. If only Apple had invested that $100M in R&D, then their iPhone customers wouldn't have to worry about "holding it wrong".

 

[NoOther]

No that isn't the case. From one of the original framers of the Sherman Act:

"...who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist..(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition"

It is only a crime if the monopolist engages in anti-competitive acts.

If you go back to when Microsoft was convicted, it wasn't for having a monopoly, it was was for doing things like going to PC retailer and setting up deals where they had to pay for a Windows OS license on every PC they sold, even if they didn't include a copy of Windows OS.

This meant if you wanted to buy a PC with OS/2, you had to pay more even if OS/2 was less expensive, because you were forced to pay for Window as well. This was a blatantly anti-competitive act.

You do realize this is pretty much splitting hairs right? Having a monopoly usually involves anti-competitive practices by it's very nature. There are very few ways to have a monopoly and not be anti-competitive. One way is to have something controlled by the government, in which case it is a sanctioned monopoly controlled by the government. Another method is to have no one want to be in that market, so you have a monopoly by de facto. The second does not happen too often. The only reason they ruled in that case was because of this second option, but that isn't always the practice.

For instance, the government consistently hurts companies that are de facto monopolies. For instance, there is a company that services a particular system on Aircraft carriers. No one else wishes to provide this service, but the government with its laws says that it must receive more than one proposal for a contract in order to properly award the contract (there are some caveats to this, but they are not always applicable as in this case). This company has gone bankrupt 2-3 times and a new company has emerged because they still have to pay all the money and go through the whole proposal process even though they are the only bidder, only to be rejected because there is not a second bidder and have to go through the process again. There are several instances of situations similar to this as well. Also there are companies that get sued for anti-trust practice when a competitor enters into a market that was previously uncontested.

The simple fact here is that nothing is simple, but there are obviously companies that go out of their way to be anti-competitive, and then there are companies that are trying to just do smart business, but it ends up being anti-competitive. Apple has consistently engaged in obvious anti-competitive tactics. That is the point here.

 

[Snowdog]

You do realize this is pretty much splitting hairs right?

No it isn't. Monopoly is simply market position. Natural monopolies emerge all the time, because of first mover advantages.

Anti-competive behaviors are what needs remedies and Microsoft's past shows clear examples.

Apple has consistently engaged in obvious anti-competitive tactics. That is the point here.

Several times, people have asked for citations of these so called obvious tactics. Why is it no one has yet simply given some examples? BTW defending your IP with a lawsuit isn't considered to be one of them.

 

[pigpen]

What's not being reported is the amount of time and money HTC had to invest to defend themselves from Apple, which i'm sure Apple is figuring into the "win" column. The article said Apple is currently suing them now with an end date expected sometime in 2013. That could still be another two years worth of legal fees for HTC. I think that's really what Apple is after here.

 

[kac77]

No that isn't the case. From one of the original framers of the Sherman Act:

It most certainly is. This is an excerpt from the Sherman Act.

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"

 

[Snowdog]

It most certainly is. This is an excerpt from the Sherman Act.

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"

You are taking something out of context, that you don't understand. There weren't using the term Monopoly in 1890, the way you are interpreting it today.

To understand the meaning and intent 1890's you need to understand the context of the times and the intent of the framers. Luckily we have copious records from the time.

Exactly this issue was brought in the 1890's debate on this act, so you can see the intent directly from the framers at the time, when the were dealing with power trusts that were dominating the land.

Straight from the original Sherman Act debate in 1890:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/issues/volume61/number3/hovenkamp.pdf
"Senator John E. Kenna of West Virginia, one of the opponents, objected that the plain language of the statute would condemn one “who happens by his skill and energy to command an innocent and legitimate monopoly of a business.”

But Senator George Hoar from Massachusetts, one of the principal drafters of the legislation, disagreed. He stated that the statute prohibited only “the sole engrossing to a man’s self by means which prevent other men from engaging in fair competition with him.”

As Senator Hoar then explained, one “who merely by superior skill and intelligence . . . got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist.”

Rather, monopolization involves “something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition.”"

Have a look at the legal definition explained:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sherman+Anti-Trust+Act

Section two of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolies, attempts to monopolize, or conspiracies to monopolize. A monopoly is a form of market structure where only one or very few companies dominate the total sales of a particular product or service. Economic theories show that monopolists will use their power to restrict production of goods and raise prices. The public suffers under a monopolistic market because it does not have the quantity of goods or the low prices that a competitive market could offer.

Although the language of the Sherman Act forbids all monopolies, the courts have held that the act only applies to those monopolies attained through abused or unfair power. Monopolies that have been created through efficient, competitive behavior are not illegal under the Sherman Act, as long as honest methods have been employed. In determining whether a particular situation that involves more than one company is a monopoly, the courts must determine whether the presence of monopoly power exists in the market. Monopoly power is defined as the ability to control price or to exclude competitors from the marketplace. The courts look to several criteria in determining market power but primarily focus on market share (the company's fractional share of the total relevant product and geographic market). A market share greater than 75 percent indicates monopoly power, a share less than 50 percent does not, and shares between 50 and 75 percent are inconclusive in and of themselves.

So intent made crystal clear during the debates that led to it's passing, and interpreted that way by the courts ever since it was passed.

 

[Sly]

What's not being reported is the amount of time and money HTC had to invest to defend themselves from Apple, which i'm sure Apple is figuring into the "win" column. The article said Apple is currently suing them now with an end date expected sometime in 2013. That could still be another two years worth of legal fees for HTC. I think that's really what Apple is after here.

Technically legal. You can't point at anything illegal being done since it's the system itself being manipulated for anti-competitive practices.

 

[Ryokurin]

Technically legal. You can't point at anything illegal being done since it's the system itself being manipulated for anti-competitive practices.

This was exactly what I was getting at when I said they were using the system as a tax. Is it dirty? Yes. but it's not illegal.

 

[kac77]

You are taking something out of context, that you don't understand. There weren't using the term Monopoly in 1890, the way you are interpreting it today.

Nope. There is nothing out of context. You are trying to take English and make shit = flowers. Of course there's going to be dissenting positions within debates of the Sherman Act.That's why we call them debates. However using excerpts from debates in the place of the law itself is really ridiculous.

That being said your lack of reading comprehension is really scary. Look at what you quoted.

Although the language of the Sherman Act forbids all monopolies, the courts have held that the act only applies to those monopolies attained through abused or unfair power. Monopolies that have been created through efficient, competitive behavior are not illegal under the Sherman Act, as long as honest methods have been employed.

Here is what i said earlier....

The Sherman Act. Despite what people believe the Sherman Act actually prohibited monopolies and conspiring to corner the marketplace using said monopoly to do so. The whole reason this issue is a problem is because our judicial system decided to create laws that went against what was codified to become the Sherman Act.

What I said earlier and what you quoted are identical. You know, projection is a bitch if done incorrectly.

 

[Sly]

This was exactly what I was getting at when I said they were using the system as a tax. Is it dirty? Yes. but it's not illegal.

That's the gist of what everyone's hate on apple isn't it. They can do it right in front of the supreme court, right in front of every lawyer on the planet, know exactly what they're trying to do, know perfectly well that it's underhanded and unethical, watch the written law twisted into something that wasn't what they were originally intended for.

And all they can say is "There's nothing to see here".

 

[Snowdog]

Nope. There is nothing out of context. You are trying to take English and make shit = flowers. Of course there's going to be dissenting positions within debates of the Sherman Act.That's why we call them debates. However using excerpts from debates in the place of the law itself is really ridiculous.

Dissenting opinion?

He was one of the guys who wrote the bill and one of the main principles. He makes his intent clear from the beginning.

If he writes something, then explains what it means, that isn't dissent, it is clarification.

The courts didn't change anything, they were following his guidance.


The bill was always intended to curtail abuses, that lead to,or support monopolization. It was never meant to curtail monopolies that resulted from simply doing things better than your competition (that would be, quite clearly idiotic). You won't find a one analysis that supports your shallow interpretation based on one paragraph, out of context of the whole bill, and times it was drafted, that arrives at the conclusions that are uniquely yours (and completely wrong).

A typical analysis:
http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/sherman-anti-trust-act-and-analysis/

Facts about the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was proposed by Senator John Sherman.

It was intended, according to Sherman, to protect the consumers by preventing arrangements “designed, or which tend, to advance the cost of the consumer”.

The final version of the bill, written by the Senate Judiciary Committee, was intended to only include people who got their market share through force, fraud, or theft. To quote Senator George Hoar’s explanation to the Senate before the bill was passed:

A man who “got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could” would not be in violation of the Sherman Act.

In fact, as careful reading reveals, the law only forbids “restraint of trade or commerce”.