[stale2002]

> Or because those two companies created those platform

This is completely irrelevant if they are a monopoly and subject to anti trust laws.

> I don't see why they owe it to other companies

That owe it to the countries that they are based in to follow the law, or move their entire company else where, if that's what they choose.

[semiquaver]

> This is completely irrelevant if they are a monopoly and subject to anti trust laws.

No legal precedent supports the idea that the Android or iOS app stores are monopolies under US law. We are in a thread discussing a final verdict against that proposition which is now binding in CA9.

“This is completely irrelevant if [this decidedly false fact]” is not really a useful statement. Wishcasting that courts will misinterpret the law is not the way forward, the way forward is new laws.

[stale2002]

> No legal precedent supports

Gotcha. Unrelated to my point though.

My point was that someone saying "well it's their platform, they can do what they want!" Is making a bad argument.

If someone wants to make a good argument, instead of a bad one, then you would have to start talking about what a monopoly is.

But whoever built the platform is simply an argument that is unrelated.

> is not really a useful statement.

It absolutely is useful, because it focuses on the question that matters.

No matter if you think that Apple is a monopoly or not, of which there are reasonable arguments to be made on all sides, the fact that Apple built it just doesn't matter.

Talk about the things that matter, not unrelated points.

> a final verdict against that proposition which is now binding in CA9.

If you meant to imply that this is a final verdict on if Apple is a monopoly or not, then I would recommend that you re-read the original ruling of the California judge.

The California judge was very clear that the verdict only shows that Epic failed in their arguments, not that Apple is decidedly not a monopoly.

[semiquaver]

You’re mistaken. The district court did in fact find that Apple does not possess monopoly power in any relevant market. Here is the ruling from the 9th Circuit: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...

Now that SCOTUS has denied cert this constitutes a final judgement. Its rulings on law are binding throughout the 9th circuit. While “possession of monopoly power is a fact question”, this denial is likely to be the final say for quite some time on questions of whether Apple possesses monopoly power in markets related to app stores, which it obviously does not because of the existence of Android.

Epic attempted to argue that Apple has monopoly power in “iOS games” which was rejected since you can’t just arbitrarily narrow your market definition until you find a monopoly.

[stale2002]

> Now that SCOTUS has denied cert this constitutes a final judgement

You still don't understand. This is in reference to epic's case. It not about other people's cases. The final judgement is on Epic. It is not on the upcoming US government case, for example.

Do you understand the difference?

Do a control F on the document for "Epic failed". Notice how the words "epic failed" are completely different from "everyone in the world has failed"?

This case is about epic's case, not others. Mostly because Epic did not provide enough evidence and failed on the fact finding portion of the original trial.

But that has nothing to do with if other groups provide evidence that Epic missed.

> Epic attempted to argue

Epic attempted to argue it. And epic's, and only epic's argument has failed.

> which it obviously does not because of the existence of Android.

I don't think you understand what a monopoly is, according to anti trust law.

A monopoly is not a single firm. Instead it is about durable market power.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

From the FTC:

"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."

If you want another source, for future lawsuits, you can simply research the US government's upcoming case against apple.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/17/doj-to-file-antitrust-case-a...

[JeffSnazz]

> No legal precedent supports the idea that the Android or iOS app stores are monopolies under US law.

I probably shouldn't have used the term. It's still a very negative sign about our future that's worth fighting.

[simiones]

> No legal precedent supports the idea that the Android or iOS app stores are monopolies under US law.

The right way to look at it is "US law is not written in a way to recognize and break up these monopolies". By any common sense or economic definition, these are monopolies. That the legal definition is out of whack is a problem which will hopefully be corrected.

[semiquaver]

I agree, and said as much in the second part of my comment.

[simiones]

I misunderstood that part, sorry.