Apple: Damned if you do…
In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand wrote:
If I were asked to choose the date which marks the turning point on the road to the ultimate destruction of American industry, and the most infamous piece of legislation in American history, I would choose the year 1890 and the Sherman Act–which began that grotesque, irrational, malignant growth of unenforceable, incompliable, injudicable contradictions known as the antitrust laws.
Under the antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. If he complies with one of these laws, he faces criminal prosecution under several others. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly, or, rather, for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.”
If you would like to see an example of the type of prosecution Ayn Rand speaks of, you only need to look at the current plight of Apple. Over the past couple weeks, Apple has been presented with multiple lawsuits from unhappy customers. The lawsuits are centered around three basic issues. The first issue is Apple’s exclusive deal with AT&T and its enforcement of that deal through software updates to its iPhone software. According to those who are bringing suit against Apple, the deal between AT&T and Apple is monopolistic in nature and illegal according to FCC policies and the law (including the Sherman Act). The second issue is, believe it or not, is Apple’s decision to drop the price of its iPhone by $200. And the third is Apple’s decision not to include a removable battery in the iPhone. It’s hard to find a decision Apple made regarding its iPhone release that someone won’t claim is a violation of the customer’s rights.
Now, if you’re like me, you’re wondering how Apple’s deal with AT&T could constitute a monopoly. Apple and AT&T are just two players in a large, competitive cell-phone market that nobody is even close to “monopolizing.” This is where the “unenforceable, incompliable, injudicable” antitrust laws Ayn Rand spoke of come in to play. The litigants in this case are not accusing Apple of monopolizing the entire cell phone industry. They claim Apple is trying to monopolize “portions of the mobile cell phone market.” One of the court documents even refers to Apple’s “monopolization of the Relevant Market.” In other words, Apple is being sued for monopolizing the iPhone market.
But what about the price drop? Aren’t most people happy when the price of a product drops dramatically? Not the woman who is suing Apple for it. She claims that Apple’s price drop was “not necessary” and it lowered the resale value of the phone she had purchased. She wants a million dollars for her trouble. I don’t know how much damages those who are complaining about the battery are seeking, but I’m sure it’s a lot. (By the way, if you don’t like the battery, why not take it back?)
I see a common thread in all of these cases, and it is the belief that Apple should not have the ability to own and control its own property. To these people, the happiness of Apple’s customer is not a requirement to stay in business; it’s a legal requirement to be enforced by any customer who disagrees with a decision Apple made. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of the implications of this type of logic. If the rules and limitations Apple sets for its property is a violation of the rights of its customers, what piece of software or hardware could be considered safe from litigation? Accepting the litigants’ arguments requires the rejection of the idea that property — whether material or intellectual — should be owned or controlled by the individual that created it.
I’m hoping that these cases are rejected by the court or Apple wins handily, but I think it is a shame that we’re at a point where these types of cases are even considered. Good luck Apple!
Tags: [apple, iPhone, property rights]Comments
Canadian movie recording
The Canadian government is considering a law to ban camcording movies shows in theaters. Not surprisingly, piracy advocates are unhappy. The first sentence I read about this is the funniest:
From p2pnet.com:
Can you castigate an entire nation for the ill deeds of a few? Hollywood says you can and so, apparently, does the current Canadian government.
Castigate? How will a law that criminalizes the recording of illegal copies of movies “castigate” the entire nation? How many people use a camcorder in movie theaters for legal reasons? How many people use a camcorder in a movie theater at all?
But wait, the author of the above quote states how it will:
I’d also suggest the techniques being used to apprehend the alleged criminals are likely to cause more trouble for the audience than the bad guys.
Sending ushers equipped with night vision goggles creeping down corridors trying to spot camcording criminals is far more likely to interfere with the audience viewing pleasures than to result in the capture of illicit copiers.
I’d say that the cause of the night-vision-equipped ushers were the illegal recorders. But this example of his is not a real, and piracy advocates are not trying to save movie-goers from Rainbow Six ushers. They want to prevent the passage of laws that will explicitely forbid this obvious method of violating the property rights of movie makers.
Tags: [movies, piracy, property rights]