So, this is a political document (Democrat-led), and should be taken as such, but it is certainly interesting to see a major House committee declare effectively all current Big Tech companies as monopoly abusers in violation of antitrust laws.
Most notably in respect of Apple, vast weight is given to arguments made by various members of the “Coalition for App Fairness”, including that Apple’s 30% is too expensive, and that they are illegally restricting access to their own hardware.
Will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Republicans add here, but it certainly suggests that a Democrat-led Department of Justice would intend to knock some heads in Big Tech (and that Apple vs Epic will get a bit wilder before the end).
I have my doubts that all of the practices cited here represent illegal restraints as contemplated by Sherman et al, but this does appear a harbinger of a tumultuous period yet to come.
But it is very much worth noting that this is not a legally binding conclusion. If/when DoJ sues one of these parties on these terms they will have to make (and prove) their case to a judge (or, on appeal, judges). Will be interesting to see what follow through there is here.
There is a lot of “forget those lousy judges and their *interpretations*” in both documents.
Not sure about that.
“However, antitrust enforcers have boxed themselves in by relying on judicial interpretations instead of statutory language and Congressional intent. “
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A laughable assertion. His authority is expressly limited (outside of prohibiting gatherings) solely to "procedures...to insure continuation of essential public health services and enforcement of [existing] health laws."
Absent a threat to "continuation" there is no authority.
The order, for those interested. Difficult to see how application of the non-delegation doctrine that prohibited an elected official's actions in this regard would permit an unelected official's, but I guess that's for the next lawsuit.
Notably, the court in Certified Questions was particularly concerned with the lack of contours given to the executive's use of power, where here, virtually no such contours are established at all. Instead, the director simply shouts "continuation" and provides 4 pages of "law".
Here on the eve of #TheLastofUsPartII let's take a look back at two months of Sony legal stories.
It begins with a question.
"Is Sony Illegally Using the DMCA to Muzzle Last of Us Leaks? (VL215)"
A deeper dive took us into the seedy underbelly of Sony's previous attempts to "extra-legally" curtail discussion of their information, let out into the wild.
"Last of Us Leak Follow-Up: A History of Legal Violence (VL216)"
Next we turned to an examination of "fair use" in the context of "unpublished works", unfortunately (for Sony) finding no satisfaction in the law for Sony's DMCA "aggression".
"Last of Us Leaks: Counters, Fair Use, and Unpublished Works (VL217)"
Alright, who's ready for a page turn highlight review of Volume 2 of the #MuellerReport? (For yesterday's extensive Volume 1 review, please see the link below).
This will take a while, so check back on the thread periodically.
Volume 2 of the #MuellerReport begins as Volume 1 did, with a sentence setting the tone. A "variety of actions".
So, from a legal point of view, the Special Counsel felt obligated under its statutory authority to not indict a sitting President (really for any reason) based on a 2000 Office of Legal Counsel determination. Note that this does not preclude an indictment after leaving office.
Definitely going to be reading the #MuellerReport. May wind up putting highlights and summary thoughts in this thread depending on how much of interest is in there. 448 pages!
Setting the tone. First sentence of the #MuellerReport (after recitals of legal status).
Just the executive description (summary), but you can begin to see the contours of the #MuellerReport findings: (i) Russia hacked/influenced, (ii) Trump campaign knew about hacking/influencing, (iii) no proof ("did not establish") that Trump campaign helped hacking/influencing.