5 ms·
Doesn't matter, the behaviour is still monopolistic, but even if we cede that point it's absolutely a duopoly. Fortnite is also banned on Google play, they've l
by bananaface 6y ago
Doesn't matter, the behaviour is still monopolistic, but even if we cede that point it's absolutely a duopoly. Fortnite is also banned on Google play, they've lost access to over 90% of the mobile market. The Sherman Act isn't about being a monopoly, it's about exploiting an unfair degree of leverage.
But either way that's not my point. Epic establishing a precedent that restricts the degree to which companies can dominate a supply line and then use that position to skim isn't going to make it easier for Epic to dominate you, the consumer. That's not their objective. That is Apple's objective.
- pjmlp 6y agoYour point is meaningless in face of the law, and that is what all anti-Apple champions will get with this lawsuit.
- bananaface 6y agoThey aren't suing Apple for being a monopoly, they're suing Apple for violating the Sherman Act. https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/1297520275790139394 https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/129752027579013939...
- parasubvert 6y agoWhich they clearly haven’t violated, by any historical or legal measure. But we will see. And also, it’s up to the DOJ to litigate this, not competitors. They don’t have the standing.
- jsmith45 6y agoThey absolutely do have standing. 15 U.S.C. §15 allows for injured parties of anti-trust violation to sue for treble damages. This is separate to and beyond any criminal charges the DOJ can bring. If courts determine that Apples behavior violates anti-trust laws, it is unlikely that they would find that Epic was not an injured party.