The DOJ Comes After Apple – And Me!
Several decades ago, I was on the wrong side of a DOJ anti-trust investigation that alleged price fixing by all five producers of sodium bicarbonate. My employer, FMC Corporation, was one of the defendants. Since I had responsibility for that business during the time that the alleged practices occurred, I became deeply involved in understanding the charges, and developing our defense.
My experience included testifying before a federal Grand Jury, unnerving to say the least. But to make a long story short, the DOJ ultimately advised all five companies that no charges were being brought, and that they were closing their case. We knew we had done nothing wrong, always wondered what triggered the investigation, and spent several million dollars in legal fees, not to mention the frustration, distraction and worry that the whole process engendered over 18 months.
What I learned from this is the enormous power of the government to use their unlimited funds to pursue cases against private companies, for almost any reason. Lina Kahn’s tenure at the FTC has been littered with court defeats, and there certainly is no compensation for the costs incurred by the companies against whom she brought lawsuits.
This brings us to the most recent government assault on private enterprise – the Government vs. Apple. Attorney General Merrick Garland, announcing the suit, said “(Apple) has maintained its power, not because of its superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behavior”. I beg to differ. Apple has superior devices and software, in my opinion, which is why they can command a price premium – a premium that millions of users are willing to pay.
If you plow through the DOJ list of alleged offenses, they all center on the claim that Apple “locks customers in” to their ecosystem, and makes it more difficult and expensive for sellers of other devices and software to compete.
Millions of dollars in legal fees will now be spent to litigate this case over the next several years. I’m not an antitrust attorney by any means but, watching the video of the DOJ’s press conference, I don’t think Apple will have much trouble defending themselves.
There is a much larger point to be made, though. It’s a question of the government impinging on my freedoms, and threatening my digital security.
I make a conscious decision to pay a premium for Apple products. In my view, their integration of hardware and software is superior, and my entire family’s adoption of Apple gives us a way to communicate and share information seamlessly.
I seldom purchase outside apps, but when I do I am content to purchase them even with the allegedly anti-competitive 30% app store fee included. If I thought the price for the app was too high, I simply would not buy it. But the number of app developers has soared 374% in the last decade, to a total of some 5.2 million. Doesn’t sound like much hardship to me.
Apple’s rigorous attention to quality control for their devices and the apps sold through their “App Store” protects me. Garland’s insistence that other devices be allowed to integrate into the Apple system even more than they already do, threatens my digital security by allowing weak or compromised software to find its way into my Apple devices.
Simply put, Mr. Garland, stay out of it. Let me choose the products and services that I want. Let Apple price their products and services in a way that supports their profitability. If I don’t like it, I won’t buy it.
Finally, I challenge the DOJ and Apple to publish a quarterly report on money spent both prosecuting and defending this case. We have the right to know these costs, because taxpayers will be footing the bill, through higher taxes and higher product prices.