> To simplify it as much as possible, the Beverage vs Apple case establishes a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal government. So, the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair.
That is nonsense. A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.
IANAL so this specific case notwithstanding, that sounds like a gross overgeneralization of the Supremacy Clause, which at least in interpretation is largely constrained to the powers that the Constitution gives the federal government.
It literally says, in the link that you have posted: "The Supremacy Clause is essentially a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law."
This has not been true since the mid-1900s. Federal courts considering claims based on state law are bound by state court precedent. Even the US Supreme Court.
Apple prevailed with respect to the federal antitrust claims in Epic v Apple. Apple lost on the California antitrust claim, a California issue. California courts are the authority on California issues.
As per FTC v. Phoebe Putney, unless the californian policy is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed" the injunction should be trumped by federal law. Based on the beverage ruling alone it would seem that there is no such policy.
I don't particularly feel like debating this as I am not familiar with the case - i am simply pointing out the error I quoted as given in the article.
I’ll leave this conversation now. You fundamentally do not understand the procedural posture of this case because if you did you would understand that there is no federal law at issue here. This injunction is based on a federal court’s interpretation of state law that has since been completely rejected by the relevant state’s courts. You seem to lack the necessary legal education to even discuss the legal arguments being advanced.
Given your stealth edit, I can’t help myself but to respond.
The statement that you’re not familiar with the case was an edit added after I posted. Whether or not what the article says is correct (it’s ambiguous), what you said is not. Your post said:
A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.
Apple’s financial and legal teams must be throwing a ball…
> the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair
This seems unfair, as two opposing judgements for different plaintiffs by different courts shouldn’t result in just the preferential outcome for the defendant.
> there is no proof that users would go to Epic and spend money without anti-steering in place instead of some alternative store
This is equally crazy - how can Epic show proof without ever being given a chance by Apple to try? Can’t they use examples from the Reader app carve out like Amazon/Netflix, which prove that consumers will pay for things outside the App Store when given the chance?
It is likely the Apple lawyers’ response to the judges order to “find a way” to produce the 1.3 million over the weekend. Stalling the process is certainly one way.
> To simplify it as much as possible, the Beverage vs Apple case establishes a ruling by a state government that cannot be contradicted by the federal government. So, the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair.
That is nonsense. A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.
IANAL so this specific case notwithstanding, that sounds like a gross overgeneralization of the Supremacy Clause, which at least in interpretation is largely constrained to the powers that the Constitution gives the federal government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
It literally says, in the link that you have posted: "The Supremacy Clause is essentially a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain federal acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with federal law."
This has not been true since the mid-1900s. Federal courts considering claims based on state law are bound by state court precedent. Even the US Supreme Court.
Antitrust law is a federal issue.
Apple prevailed with respect to the federal antitrust claims in Epic v Apple. Apple lost on the California antitrust claim, a California issue. California courts are the authority on California issues.
As per FTC v. Phoebe Putney, unless the californian policy is "clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed" the injunction should be trumped by federal law. Based on the beverage ruling alone it would seem that there is no such policy.
I don't particularly feel like debating this as I am not familiar with the case - i am simply pointing out the error I quoted as given in the article.
I’ll leave this conversation now. You fundamentally do not understand the procedural posture of this case because if you did you would understand that there is no federal law at issue here. This injunction is based on a federal court’s interpretation of state law that has since been completely rejected by the relevant state’s courts. You seem to lack the necessary legal education to even discuss the legal arguments being advanced.
As I said, i am not familiar with the case, just pointing out the issue with the article.
Edit: Given your stealth edit, I would suggest you check your attitude rather than calling others education into question.
Given your stealth edit, I can’t help myself but to respond.
The statement that you’re not familiar with the case was an edit added after I posted. Whether or not what the article says is correct (it’s ambiguous), what you said is not. Your post said:
A nationwide injunction issued by the federal court takes precedence over any conflicting state court decision, as per the "Supremacy Clause" in the constitution.
This is flat out an incorrect statement.
Apple’s financial and legal teams must be throwing a ball…
> the nationwide injunction no longer can be enforced without violating that state-level ruling that Apple's anti-steering rules are fair
This seems unfair, as two opposing judgements for different plaintiffs by different courts shouldn’t result in just the preferential outcome for the defendant.
> there is no proof that users would go to Epic and spend money without anti-steering in place instead of some alternative store
This is equally crazy - how can Epic show proof without ever being given a chance by Apple to try? Can’t they use examples from the Reader app carve out like Amazon/Netflix, which prove that consumers will pay for things outside the App Store when given the chance?
Disclaimer: IANAL
It is likely the Apple lawyers’ response to the judges order to “find a way” to produce the 1.3 million over the weekend. Stalling the process is certainly one way.