[scarface74]

The court very much said the App Store wasn’t a monopoly. To argue otherwise means that every console maker’s digital store is also a “monopoly” as is the Roku’s store and every TV makers App Store (Samsung, FireTVs, etc).

[ethbr0]

>> The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist [in the market of digital mobile gaming transactions].

Not sure how that is overly complicated? Or you or others shorten that to 'the court said the App Store wasn’t a monopoly'?

The court said a very different thing.

And yes, it should be illegal to sell physical devices with a non-user-selectable digital store.

[scarface74]

Yes and “it’s possible” that if I jump off of a 30 story building and flap my arms I will fly. But if Epics high price lawyers couldn’t prove it and you have an argument that they missed that will stand up in court, I’m sure their lawyers would be glad to hear from you.

[ethbr0]

I think what you think the ruling said (Apple does not have a monopoly) and what the ruling actually said (that Apple's market share and profit margins aren't sufficient to demonstrate a monopoly in the digital mobile gaming transactions market, noting that there were unexplored arguments in even that case) are two very different things.

A legal case is decided on the arguments brought, weighed against current law. It's not some black/white definition of universal truth.

[scarface74]

I’m saying if the high priced lawyers couldn’t come up with a convincing argument after researching and with a team of lawyers, why do you think you have “the one true argument” that could stand up in court?

[ethbr0]

That's... not what I've been saying?