ELI5: Apple is forcing every iPhone to have installed "Apple Music" once it comes out. Didn't Microsoft get in legal trouble in years past for having IE on every PC, and also not letting the users have the ability to uninstall?

product tying is about forcing you to buy anything else when you buy something. that means the two products cannot be disentangled. A fridge and its fridge door logically need to go together and will nbe permitted to be sold together. Apple Itunes and an Iphone do not need to go together and is therefore illegal. The thing is, antitrust law is only about 150 years old - extremely young. The concepts revolve on what are two separate products and what amounts to anticompetitive conduct. The usual test is a substantial reduction in competition. As a new area of law, there is a vast amount of corporate lobbying. However, one thing is very clear, itunes and iphones do not need to be sold together whatsoever. This is the same argument that Elizabeth Warren is pushing. The time has come to smash down the big stupid corporate behemoths oppressing everyone else. And reddit should be smart, perceptive enough, to grasp and espouse the essential concepts! Shamefully, reddits brainpower seems to be severely deficient!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b "Tying". The Blanch Law Firm. Retrieved 31 March 2011. Jump up ^ See N. Pac. Ry Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958); International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947) Jump up ^ 15 U.S.C. s. 14 Jump up ^ N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1958) Jump up ^ Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 461–62 (1992) Jump up ^ See Fornter Enterprises v. United States Steel, 394 U.S. 495 (1969); United States v. Loew's, Inc. 372 U.S. 38 (1962) Jump up ^ See Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1985) Jump up ^ See Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, 547 U.S. 28 (2006) Jump up ^ Honan, Mathew (January 9, 2007). "Apple unveils iPhone". Macworld. Retrieved March 14, 2011. Jump up ^ Lewis, Peter (January 12, 2007). "How Apple kept its iPhone secrets". CNN Money. Retrieved January 11, 2009. ^ Jump up to: a b Hafner, Katie (September 29, 2007). "Altered iPhones Freeze Up". The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Broache, Anne (July 11, 2007). "Democrats criticize AT&T's exclusive iPhone deal". CNET News. Retrieved March 14, 2011. Jump up ^ Gonsowski, Laurie (July 6, 2007). "Does Apple's Tightly Controlled Ecosystem Strategy Constitute and Illegal Tying Arrangement?". Retrieved March 15, 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b Chartier, David (October 7, 2007). "California man seeks class action lawsuit over iPhone bricking, lock-in". ars technica. Retrieved March 15, 2011. Jump up ^ Wolfe, Alexander (October 5, 2007). "Apple Class-Action Suit Filed by California Man Over iPhone Bricking". InformationWeek. Retrieved March 15, 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Kravets, David (July 26, 2010). "U.S. Declares iPhone Jailbreaking Legal, Over Apple's Objections". Wired. Retrieved March 15, 2011. ^ Jump up to: a b See United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Jump up ^ Id. at 64-67, 84-86. Jump up ^ See Complaint filed in New York v. Microsoft Corp. PP 88-95, 98, 117-19, No. 98-1233 (D.D.C. filed May 18, 1998) Jump up ^ See Civil No. JFM-05-1087. Jump up ^ See Timothy D. Naegele, The Bank Holding Company Act's Anti-Tying Provision: 35 Years Later, 122 Banking Law Journal 195 (2005); http://www.naegele.com/whats_new.html#articles. Bibliography[edit] Donald Turner, Tying Arrangements Under the Antitrust Laws, 72 Harv. L. Rev. 50 (1958); George J. Stigler, A Note On Block Booking, 1963 Supreme Court Review 152; Kenneth Dam, Fortner Enterprises v. United States Steel: Neither a Borrower Nor A Lender Be, 1969 S. Ct. Rev. 1; Timothy D. Naegele, Are All Bank Tie-Ins Illegal?, 154 Bankers Magazine 46 (1971); Richard A. Posner, Antitrust: An Economic Perspective, 171-84 (1976); Joseph Bauer, A Simplified Approach to Tying Arrangements: A Legal and Economic Analysis, 33 Vanderbilt Law Review 283 (1980); Richard Craswell, Tying Requirements in Competitive Markets: The Consumer Protection Rationale, 62 Boston University L. Rev. 661 (1982); Roy Kenney and Benjamin Klein, The Economics of Block Booking, 26 J. Law & Economics 497 (1983); Timothy D. Naegele, The Anti-Tying Provision: Its Potential Is Still There, 100 Banking Law Journal 138 (1983); Victor Kramer, The Supreme Court and Tying Arrangements: Antitrust As History, 69 Minnesota L. Rev. 1013 (1985); Benjamin Klein and Lester Saft, The Law and Economics of Franchise Tying Contracts, 28 J. Law and Economics 245 (1985); Alan Meese, Tying Meets The New Institutional Economics: Farewell to the Chimera of Forcing, 146 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1 (1997); Christopher Leslie, Unilaterally Imposed Tying Arrangements and Antitrust's Concerted Action Requirement, 60 Ohio St. L.J. 1773 (1999); John Lopatka and William Page, The Dubious Search For Integration in the Microsoft Trial, 31 Conn. L. Rev. 1251 (1999); Alan Meese, Monopoly Bundling in Cyberspace: How Many Products Does Microsoft Sell?, 44 Antitrust Bull. 65 (1999); Keith N. Hylton and Michael Salinger, Tying Law and Policy: A Decision-Theoretic Approach, 69 Antitrust L. J. 469 (2001); Michael D. Whinston, Exclusivity and Tying in U.S. v. Microsoft: What We Know, and Don't Know, 15 Journal of Economic Perspectives, 63-80 (2001); Christopher Leslie, Cutting Through Tying Theory with Occam's Razor: A Simple Explanation of Tying Arrangements, 78 Tul. L. Rev. 727 (2004); and Timothy D. Naegele, The Bank Holding Company Act's Anti-Tying Provision: 35 Years Later, 122 Banking Law Journal 195 (2005).

/r/explainlikeimfive Thread Parent