Veamcast is currently undergoing another revamp.
You can still
evaluate the software here but all Roku functionality won't work anymore.
We already removed the Facebook functionality except where it doesn't require the API.
Antitrust Violations and Penalties
a) Violation of Sherman Act Section 2 (15 U.S.C. § 2)
Monopolization or attempt to monopolize the market
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Criminal Penalties:
- Felony charges for individuals
- Up to 10 years in prison for individuals
Why not? If not them, who?
Civil Penalties:
- Fines up to $1 million for individuals
- Fines up to $100 million for corporations, or twice the amount gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims if either of those amounts is over $100 million
b) Violation of Clayton Act Section 3 (15 U.S.C. § 14)
Exclusive dealing arrangements that substantially lessen competition.
Penalties:
- Civil: Injunctive relief and treble (threefold) damages
c) Violation of FTC Act Section 5(a) (15 U.S.C. § 45(a))
Covers a wide range of deceptive or unfair business practices.
Penalties:
- Civil: Cease and desist orders, injunctions, and monetary penalties
Legal Basis and Relevant Case Law for Antitrust Claims
Legal Basis and Relevant Case Law
1. Sherman Act Section 2 (monopolization)
- United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001): Established that a company can violate Section 2 by engaging in anticompetitive conduct that maintains its monopoly power
- Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398 (2004): Discussed limits on a monopolist's duty to assist rivals
2. Clayton Act Section 3
Makes it illegal to enter into tying arrangements, exclusive dealing contracts or requirements contracts if such arrangements or contracts tend to lessen competition
- Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984): Set standards for analyzing tying arrangements under antitrust law
- United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005): Addressed exclusive dealing arrangements and their potential to foreclose competition
3. FTC Act Section 5(a) (unfair methods of competition)
- FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233 (1972): Established that the FTC has broad powers to determine unfair competitive practices beyond those forbidden by the Sherman Act or Clayton Act
- FTC v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447 (1986): Demonstrated that concerted refusals to deal with third parties can violate antitrust laws
Relevant Case Law
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
Landmark case dealing with monopolization in the operating system market
Microsoft had monopoly power in the PC operating system market and took actions to maintain this monopoly, violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act
Ohio v. American Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274 (2018)
Involved anti-competitive practices in a two-sided market, analogous to social media platforms
Both sides of a two-sided market must be considered when analyzing anti-competitive effects
FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2020)
Deals with alleged anti-competitive practices in licensing technology
Emphasized the importance of proving harm to competition, not just competitors
United States v. Apple, Inc., 791 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015)
Involved allegations of conspiracy to raise e-book prices
Apple orchestrated a conspiracy among book publishers to raise e-book prices
Pepper v. Apple Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019)
Allowed consumers to sue Apple for alleged monopolistic practices in its App Store
Consumers who purchase apps from Apple's App Store can sue the company for alleged monopolization
hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2019)
Deals with a company's right to access and use data from a social media platform
LinkedIn could not deny hiQ access to publicly available member profiles
United States v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-03010 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 20, 2020)
Ongoing case dealing with allegations of monopolistic practices by a major tech company
DOJ alleges Google has unlawfully maintained monopolies in search and search advertising
FTC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 9, 2020)
Directly involves Meta (Facebook) and alleges monopolistic practices in personal social networking services
FTC alleges Facebook maintained its monopoly by buying up competitive threats and imposing restrictive policies
New York v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03589 (D.D.C. filed Dec. 9, 2020)
Filed by 48 state attorneys general, alleges Facebook illegally stifles competition
Focuses on Facebook's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, and policies regarding third-party apps
FTC v. Surescripts, LLC, 424 F. Supp. 3d 92 (D.D.C. 2020)
Deals with allegations of maintaining monopoly power through exclusionary contracts
Court denied Surescripts' motion to dismiss, allowing FTC's monopolization claims to proceed
Klein v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-08570 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 3, 2020)
Class action lawsuit alleging Facebook's acquisitions were part of a scheme to neutralize competitive threats
Argues Facebook's actions harmed users by depriving them of choice and innovation in personal social networking
Citations
- Economic Liberties: FTC v. Facebook
- Casetext: FTC v. Facebook, Inc.
- FTC: $5 Billion Penalty and New Privacy Restrictions for Facebook
- FTC: Facebook's "Buy-or-Bury" Scheme
- Reason: FTC's Lawsuit Against Facebook
- PYMNTS: FTC Claims Meta Withheld Key Details
- Fortune: FTC: Facebook Withheld Information
- Wikipedia: FTC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
This video:
Veamcast Roku demo for Roku Forum
and this video:
Another revamp of Veamcast. Roku pulled the rug out from under us.
both demo the Veamcast apps which had their functionality disabled as all 3rd party Roku mobile apps did.
After allowing 3rd party access for years, Roku has decided their mobile app will be the only one that can control a Roku TV and other apps cannot compete.
Also, Roku has integrated its Roku Channel into the Live TV lineup, showcasing it prominently on its homepage, screensaver, and in the majority of ads featuring the Roku Channel. This demotes all other apps in an anti-competitive strategy aimed at monopolizing the television landscape in an anti-competitive manner.
Again, after allowing 3rd party access for years, Roku has decided that 3rd party Roku channels can not deeplink into other apps anymore killing all other discovery and curation apps. Originally, what Roku was selling to consumers was a television that was
extensible, that could be discovered and controlled by other non-Roku devices on the network. With the changes they’ve made, what Roku devices have morphed into is a device where Roku controls everything you can watch and how you watch it. Any other functionality has been demoted or disabled. It
could be construed as fraud, especially if you were investing in those TVs with that extensibility in mind (i.e. a church or theatre might have a mobile app casting to a Roku screen) or writing software for it as the Plaintiff spent so many years doing.
It could not be a clearer case of illegal monopolistic behavior
Roku CEO explaining this plan to create a platform for third parties and then how he cuts them out.
Here is a video of Anthony Wood explaining his philanthropy. He explains that “you can’t help people, they have to help themselves”, then speaks with pride about his donations to the cause of ‘curing his jet lag’ because he hates that.It ruins his vacation. He’s working on gene replacement therapy for
it. I imagine he gets tax benefits for this somehow.
Roku CEO Anthony Wood Talks About Giving Back...
Overview
Joseph Dean, a Florida-based developer, is suing Meta Platforms for anticompetitive behavior related to his social media platform Veamcast. The case (8:24cv02242) is filed in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.
Key Facts
- Developer created Veamcast, a platform for video/voice/photo publishing and sharing
- Platform initially integrated with Facebook's Graph API after approval
- Meta systematically disabled API access after seeing Veamcast's capabilities
- Complete deletion of Veamcast-related content from Meta's platforms
- Pattern of stonewalling through support channels
Alleged Anticompetitive Conduct
- Meta disabled API functions after reviewing Veamcast's functionality
- Used deceptive error messages claiming "content reported as abusive" for new content
- Deleted all Veamcast-related content without notice
- Engaged in systematic obstruction through support channels
- Used API access as competitive intelligence gathering tool
Evidence
Documentation
- Video evidence of working functionality (Exhibit A)
- Video showing disabled functions (Exhibit B)
- Extensive support communications showing pattern of obstruction (Exhibit C)
Pattern Alignment
- Conduct mirrors behavior documented in FTC v. Meta case
- Similar to other developers' experiences
- Consistent with Meta's known anticompetitive practices
Legal Claims
-
Sherman Act § 2 (Monopolization):
- Meta's monopoly power (3B+ users, $135B revenue)
- Willful maintenance through anticompetitive conduct
- Direct harm to competition
-
Clayton Act § 3 (Exclusive Dealing):
- De facto exclusive dealing through API restrictions
- Substantial lessening of competition
- Lock-in of users to Meta's ecosystem
QUICK SUMMARY: Facebook shut off the entire Veamcast platform removing all prior posts. They refuse to give any answer as to why. They shut off large portions of their APIs from third party developers. They shut off other portions just for us with error messages which were not based on anything and when we reached out for support, they gave us a colossal runaround then just closed and deleted the thread. If we hadn't saved the thread, there would be no proof.
(re-filed as Dean v Roku - corporations can not file pro se)
Links Supporting the Complaint
Court Reponses
COMPLAINT OF COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARK AND CONCEPT THEFT:
In 2005, Joe Dean began a startup named Electronic Sports. We were funded by Bigfoot. Its premiere product named Dogfight was an exercise bike interfaced with a flight simulator. Users would pedal, the prop would spin and players could shoot down balloons for points or compete in aerial combat. One player would be blue and the other red.
See Electronic Sports' Dogfight - Active Flight Simulator here.
Nintendo created one called Wi Sports Airplane Dogfight in which players passively sit at a game console and shoot down balloons for points or compete in aerial combat. One player would be blue and the other reddish.
See Nintendo's version of Dogfight here.
Apparently, it's very popular among U.S. Presidents. (Joe Dean was not involved in the creation of this video).
various links... some duplicated above
Help Wanted