4 ms·
This is incoherent, non sequitur. Again, we're talking about two different categories of devices: general computing vs. non-general. At the moment, smartphones
by Fellshard 7y ago
This is incoherent, non sequitur. Again, we're talking about two different categories of devices: general computing vs. non-general. At the moment, smartphones are non-general, insofar as they are not made for user programmability from the device itself.
Secondly, that MS case is a different matter than the one cited here, and does not map well onto this case.
Thirdly, the major precedent of the original ruling appears to have been overturned shortly after. This damages the argument somewhat. The ruling seems scurrilous in the first place, in my opinion.
- pier25 7y ago1. Apple advertised the iPad (which is also an iOS device) as a laptop replacement. 2. My point is not to compare the two cases, legally speaking, but you argued that "consumers are well aware of those constraints on purchase". Well, consumers were well aware of the limitations of Windows and that didn't change the fact that Microsoft was charged with unlawful monopolization. 3. Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
- millstone 7y agoA key finding was that Microsoft had a monopoly on the PC OS market, with marketshare > 90%. If 90's Microsoft had Apple's marketshare today, <50% in US, the judgement would have been absurd.
- Fellshard 7y agoDefining monopoly as level of market share and not just shutting out competition has always and will always be a mistake.