The court will examine the market reality and examine how consumers actually behave to determine what the actual relevant market is, and it's unlikely that a court would find "iOS app distribution" to be a separate and relevant market for antitrust purposes. People keep saying this but in an antitrust case you cannot simply declare the narrowest market that fits your argument and expect the court to accept it. It’s just not a comparable thing, it’s a world with big lock-in. You have accounts with hundreds of apps, services. Mobile phones are on people at all times.
It’s just not comparable to anything really that has existed beyond Windows/Mac which were/are entirely open. But let’s call a spade a spade: theres no smoking gun, but they are colluding, it’s just a silent “don’t lower yours and I won’t lower mine” nod.Įdit: further, with the amount of lock in they each have, there’s not much pressure anyway. You’re arguing semantics on one side then arguing generalities on the other. Sure, Epics specific case may be the only strategy they can take - they won’t find any documented collusion when there’s only two players, that’s obvious.
#Mac game store monopoly license free
I’m arguing the big picture, so feel free to engage there or not. You shifted from arguing from a purely theoretical view (if Epic had a market should they be regulated) to now arguing a very narrow view local to this case. We need to be “courageous” enough to use moral and logical thinking and not legalistic weaseling, we need to legislate them as new types of markets far bigger and more important to every persons life than any that’s ever existed. I don’t think narrow precedent should ever rule our thinking and especially when it’s clear there is no historical precedent here. It’s more akin to a world, people use them for literally every part of their lives. These platforms are nothing at all like “a market” and trying to argue from narrow historical frames is poor form. And it’s dominated by only two companies with a history of collusion.
.png "mac game store monopoly license")
The average American spends some what, 4-5 hours a day on their phone? Is there any even remotely comparable precedent for a company to control all trade through everything? The best I can think of is cable, imagine if there were only two cable companies and they not only had unilateral ability to control which channels appear, but also charged 30% to every channels profit.įurther, how many different commercial activities do people do every single day on their devices? This is a far, far bigger thing than any platform before it. “Conspiracy in restraint of trade” would fit perfectly what Apple/Google are doing.
0 kommentar(er)
