United States v. Apple Inc. is a lawsuit written for the public, an 88-page press release designed to be read aloud on cable news programs.
Litigation, functionally, is communication between lawyers and judges. Because it is a specialized letter aimed at a specialized audience, it can become highly technical and jargon-heavy—especially when it comes to niche areas of law like antitrust or complex litigation areas like technology. Even to techies, tech litigation is often arcane, littered with strange software jargon that means little outside the courtroom. (For example, antitrust law likes “middleware,” and copyright law likes “technological protection measures.”)
Although the dreaded “middleware” does appear in United States v. Apple Inc., you can barely tell it was written by a lawyer.You just have to compare it to the complaints from 1998 United States v. Microsoft See what I mean. Apple’s lawsuit even started as a magazine feature:
In 2010, an Apple executive sent an email to Apple’s then-CEO asking about advertising for the new Kindle e-reader. The ad begins with a woman using her iPhone to purchase and read books on the Kindle app. She then switched to her Android smartphone and continued reading books using the same Kindle app.The executive wrote to Jobs: 1 “One thing that shouldn’t be overlooked is that it’s easy to switch from iPhone to Android. It’s not fun to watch.” Jobs’s response was clear: Apple would lock in developers and users on its platform by “forcing” developers to use its payment system. Over the years, Apple has repeatedly responded to such competitive threats by making it harder or more expensive for users and developers to leave, rather than making it more attractive for them to stay.
A scene! figure! Calling from Steve Jobs himself! Personally, I think this paragraph could have been hard edited before publishing, but then again, It should be a lawsuit, not a work of narrative non-fiction.
In fact, this opening paragraph isn’t even numbered: legal documents like this usually have each paragraph numbered. Rather, it’s part of a strange little literary curtain that’s been trapped in the catalog until now.This is not against the rules – please note United States v. Google (2023 submission) There is a succinct introductory paragraph beyond the numbered sections – but United States v. Apple I read two full pages before making the accusation.
Compare that to the opening paragraph of the complaint in the Justice Department’s blockbuster 1998 antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft (correctly labeled, of course, as paragraph 1):
1. This is an action taken under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to restrain anticompetitive behavior by defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), the world’s largest provider of personal computer (“PC”) computer software. conduct and remedy past violations affecting it.
It’s almost like a lawyer United States v. Microsoft Wrote a document asking the judge to apply the Sherman Antitrust Act to the personal computer market! How nice it is to take a nap!
At the same time, although United States v. Apple There’s definitely a lawsuit lurking in its sheer size, but for the most part it’s a long, fairly readable tirade of all the annoying things Apple has done to me personally over the years. Green bubbling my friends and loved ones? Can’t buy Kindle books in the Amazon app? I can’t change the NFC Tap to do anything except open Apple Wallet? Will every non-Apple smartwatch have lag issues when paired with an iPhone? The Department of Justice knows. The Department of Justice is concerned. I felt seen.
There are even a couple of fascinating passages in which the Justice Department compares the need for regular updates of AAA video games to the tedious process of App Store review, before concluding: “Apple’s conduct makes cloud streaming apps unsafe for users so unattractive that no developer designed an app for it.” iPhone. “The DOJ is in no way claiming that Apple is the reason I can’t play AAA games on my iPhone… but it’s not either no so. Is Apple between me and my video games? ? ? I thought as I rummaged unconsciously for my pitchfork.
From cloud streaming games to CarPlay, the Justice Department complaint attempts to quell the backlash from all kinds of nerds. The only thing missing is a lengthy discussion about how ever-increasing screen sizes are hurting someone like me, who has very small hands. (At Thursday’s press conference, Attorney General Merrick Garland made no mention of how Sarah Jeong would like to see SE return to its 2016 size.)
You can almost forget this is a lawsuit and not just the observations of a very motivated poster edge Comments section – until you get to page 57. There, the document suddenly changes voice and finally turns to a formal communication with the judge. “A mobile phone is a portable device that communicates via radio frequencies rather than a landline,” the complaint solemnly reads.
It’s interesting to deal with the legal distillation of nerd rage on a front-line level, but there’s also an overarching narrative here that the Justice Department is trying to push, one that could have huge consequences.In a press conference on Thursday, along with the complaint, the Justice Department took pains to return calls United States v. Microsoft. Of course, the reasons are obvious. It’s not just that this is the last real big winner the FBI has scored in the tech antitrust world—in fact, the current war over the iOS closed garden looks a lot like the browser wars that sparked Microsoft’s antitrust fight last year. case!
But while these specific similarities are relevant to judges, they are less important to the general public. The Justice Department hopes for something bigger and more significant from this pullback. It hopes to link the two cases in public consciousness and use them to define itself and its role in history. “When Apple started developing mobile consumer devices, it did so within the context of: United States v. Microsoftwhich creates new opportunities for innovation in areas critical to the success of Apple’s consumer devices and the company itself,” the complaint reads.
The Justice Department wants the public to think that Apple’s success has been handed to them in part by the antitrust division, which acts like a recurring hammer on a 20-year timer. The Department of Justice is a benevolent ranger, safeguarding the U.S. economy by controlling burning. For Apple to thrive, Microsoft had to be crushed early on. Now, to usher in the next era of technology, Apple must be defeated. (The constant references to “super apps” in the complaint could be someone at the Justice Department desperately trying to get the attention of Elon Musk’s extremely fickle mind.)
Let’s just say we’re not yet at the point where we can do antitrust A/B testing.
Of course, the long saga Microsoft The antitrust action (especially if you count the lingering tailwind of appeals) coincided with a lot of things: the founding of Google, the dot-com bust, the foundings of Tencent and Baidu, the “election” of George W. Bush, 9 On March 11, the war in Iraq. The United States is no longer in the same position in diplomacy, war, or technology as it once was. The underlying dynamics of the U.S. tech industry, not just the names of the major players involved, look very different than they did 10 years ago—let alone 20 years ago. United States v. Microsoft While this will almost certainly have a significant impact on the tech industry and society as a whole, let’s just say we’re not yet at a point where we can conduct antitrust A/B testing. The Justice Department hopes to craft a narrative about its role in the technology ecosystem and the U.S. economy, but whether that narrative is true remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, its opening salvo in a battle with one of America’s most beloved corporations is off to a killer start, thanks in part to the lawyer’s unusual insight into human psychology. The complaint was filed directly with tech enthusiasts, rather than with them and a federal judge. After all, the more invested you are in the Apple ecosystem, the more chances you have of getting pissed off by Apple.The Justice Department says these hundreds of minor annoyances are Apple’s fault, It’s not yours. This is an extremely tempting invitation to get angry at them. No one can express hate as vehemently as a nerd—and sometimes, that’s because nerds have a point.