Apple Facing New Antitrust Investigation

mantis2009 writes "After recent complaints of anti-competitive behavior, the US Department of Justice has opened an inquiry into Apple's business practices for selling music. Investigators have specifically asked whether Apple colluded with record labels to thwart Amazon.com's music download store, according to the ever-present anonymous 'people briefed on the situation.' Allegedly, Apple threatened to retaliate if any music label participated in Amazon's 'MP3 Daily Deal' promotion, which offered early access to some MP3 tracks." So it looks like the Justice Department won the DoJ vs. FTC fight for the regulation bully pulpit.

Comments

Maybe

[Space cowboy]

Today wasn't the best day to become the highest-valued IT company in the world - edging out MSFT (219.18B) by having a market cap of 222.07B.

To give an idea of the scale of that achievement, Apple's share price has climbed about 560% in the past five years. Microsoft's is up 4%. Sure, market cap isn't a hugely useful measure (beyond bragging rights) of the value a company brings, but the trend is an interesting one, at least for Apple shareholders

Simon.

Re:Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consumer, and owner of several Apple products, I find their behavior to be far monopolistic than Microsoft's ever was. (Want to run Apple software? Buy Apple hardware. Want Apple hardware? It will always be loaded with Apple software. Want to load something on your iP*? Use ITMS, etc...)

The word you're looking for is 'proprietary' not 'monopoly'. You'll notice in the FS that it's about putting a competitor out of business as opposed to keeping people on their platform, which is what you just described.

Re:Maybe

[Lars T.]

Funny that, because their share price wasn't doing so well when Microsoft pumped money into Apple to keep them solvent just a few years ago.

Yeah, $150 Million, when Apple only had $1.2 in cash. What a float. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-202143.html

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Darkness404]

Because it reduces competition. If I work with software at Apple, I'm essentially barred from entering the job market at other similarly-sized corporations in the same field.

If I'm unhappy at Apple for some reason I have to stick with them because the other companies won't hire me, not because I'm not qualified but because of my previous employer.

If this was Burger King don't hiring former McDonalds employees, we wouldn't see the point, but when its software companies its ok?

Re:I don't understand this FTA

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I don't see why companies can't make this type of agreement

For the same reason Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft cannot sit down and coordinate the prices of consoles, games and accessories: cartels are bad. Therefore the regulation of an oligopoly is considered okay. In a oligopsony, similar affects arise from collusion: the buyers of services gain huge price setting power, because they no longer have to out-bid one another.

Fucking get it right....

[coolgeek]

It's an inquiry, NOT an investigation. An inquiry may or may not lead to an investigation.

Re:Keep hating Microsoft though...

[Pharmboy]

Really? They used to charge manufacturers for every computer they sold whether or not it had windows, this is a fact. They have already said that Linux infringes on their patents, this is a fact. Assuming they would continue to charge manufacturers or pursue lawsuits on their "intellectual property" if they weren't restrained in some way isn't FUD, it is logical deduction.

Most people on /. are technical persons, and I wouldn't have to give them these direct links. Most people, including people like myself who actually use some Microsoft products, already have come to the same conclusion, that Microsoft has abused it's monopoly in the past and would likely do so even more if not for being partially restrained. No fear mongering needed, history speaks for itself.