[stale2002]

> If it were so cut

Are you straight up denying the government link that I posted to you?.

> Maybe HN posters aren’t lawyers?

I have posted direct links to government information here.

If you are going to claim that the FTC website is lying to everyone, then I am not sure what to tell you. You are too far lost to ever be convinced of anything.

This is the FTC website. They are the government. They are the experts. They decide what is right or wrong. They are the primary source here!

The only opinion that matters here is the government's, as they are the ones who enforce the law!

I think that I am going to listen to the opinion of the government lawyers, over the opinion of someone who is straight up denying the government approved information that I posted.

[scarface74]

So if lawyers could prove their case just by citing the FTC’s website, they wouldn’t need to go to law school would they?

It is your opinion that the FTC summary of the law applies to Apple or a case like Apple’s unless you can find another actual real world case where a similar situation resulted in government action.

No, an antitrust case where two players collided isn’t the same thing.

[stale2002]

> It is your opinion that the FTC summary

It is my opinion that you seem to be dismissing well accepted information about the law, that is available on government websites, and that is uncontroversial among the experts.

The information that is well accepted, and available, from the government, is that you do not need to be a literal singular firm, in order to be subject to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act.

Instead, only having significant market power is enough to be subject to it.

This is an uncontroversial statement.

Please do not rephase my argument to be anything other than what I just said here.

> No, an antitrust case where two players collided isn’t the same thing.

The government link that I posted, is in reference to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act, which is regarding market power that a company has.

I am not really sure what to tell you, if you are going to deny the well accepted, and completely uncontroversial opinion among experts, and the government, that is that you do not need to be a singular, literal monopoly, in order for section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act to apply.

[scarface74]

No, I am saying your interpretation means nothing without relevant precedent where it was decided in a case of law.

If it were that easy, why wasn’t Apple or any of the console makers convicted decades ago?

Would you say someone was an expert developer based on citation from w3schools?

If it is not “controversial” where is the case law?

Can you find one relevant case where an actual judge or jury interpreted the law as you said?

Where did you get your law degree from? Where did you argue your case in court?

If you can find where a lawyer actually won a case in court based on your interpretation, I have nothing left to say.

[stale2002]

> If it were that easy

Let me quote you again.

"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. "

So, to be 100% perfectly clear, are you denying the truth of this statement that was released by the government?

I can't help you, if you are going to say that this statement, that is released by the government is false.

> based on your interpretation

The only thing that I am doing at this point is quoting the information released by the freaking US government, which it kind of seems like you are denying? Which is absolutely insane.

[scarface74]

What is “insane” is that you think, it is an open and shut case that it applies to Apple until you can point to a single precedent where the law (you didn’t quote the relevant law by the way) was actually applied to a similar case.

Would you trust a summary of internet protocols when implementing the standard to make sure you are compliant or would you go to the actual RFC?

Do you think actual “lawyers” try to argue a case based on a summary and not cite the actual law, relevant precedent, etc?

If that were the case, we wouldn’t need silly things like “trials”,”lawyers”,”judgements”, etc

[stale2002]

So you do not deny the truth of the government released statement then? Awesome! I am glad that you are not saying that this government released statement on the matter is false. Thats great!

As long as you do not deny the truth of the following statement: "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors."

Which was the original point of all of this that I was making, then thats awesome! I am glad that you don't deny the truth of it.

As long as you are not denying the truth of that statement, then that is good enough for me!