| > 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. |
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.