4 ms·

> But, if you are only willing to do a small amount of research of your own, then the case that I would recommend reading is "Hayden Publishing Co. v. Cox Broad

> But, if you are only willing to do a small amount of research of your own, then the case that I would recommend reading is "Hayden Publishing Co. v. Cox Broadcasting Corp", as well as "Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS" and "Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant" Have you actually read through these cases yourself? None of these are Supreme Court cases, and none of them actually found that the defendant held monopoly power. The first case was remanded back to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether the defendant actually held monopoly power, but it doesn't look like anything further actually happened (perhaps it was settled out of court). The second case found that the plaintiffs failed to present evidence that the defendant actually held monopoly power and the court therefore affirmed the judgement for the defendant. The third case found that the defendant only held 20% market share in the correct relevant market and therefore did not have monopoly power. The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power, not that courts have actually ruled that way before. Furthermore, even if they had, it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit because Epic is not alleging that Apple holds monopoly power in the smartphone market. Instead, they are alleging that Apple holds monopoly power in the specific sub-market of "distribution of apps on iOS devices" which they by definition have 100% control over.

stale2002 6y ago
> none of them actually found that the defendant held monopoly power. This specific comment chain is about the concept of if there is a definite threshold, that a company must be larger than, in order for it to have monopoly power. > The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power Yes. That was the point that I was making. That a firm with 50% market share could hold monopoly power. That was it, and I was making no more points than that. The other person that I was responding too has incorrectly strict definition of "monopoly power", in that he believes that there has to basically only be a single firm in the market, that is backed up by the government, in order for it to have monopoly power. And thus I have provided definitive evidence, that the courts have held, that his threshold is incorrect. And I was making no other points, other than to say that it is false to claim that in order to have monopoly power, a company much be "the only game in town", and backed by the government, as the person I was responding to incorrectly claimed. > it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit It is relevant, because the courts have not ruled what the relevant market is yet. Even though Epic is initially trying to define the market a certain way, ultimately, the market could be determined as something else. I agree that there are interesting questions here, to be decided, as to what the market is. But, unfortunately, it is not really possible to have a discussion with someone about the interesting questions, if they are going to spread misinformation on the uninteresting, and completely uncontroversial parts. At this point, it took me paragraphs and paragraphs, when the original commenter who was engaging dishonestly, and ignoring court precedent and information on government websites, all in order to try and establish an uncontroversial point that they were contesting, which is that a company can have monopoly power, even if they are not the only singular firm in the market.

stale2002 6y ago

> none of them actually found that the defendant held monopoly power. This specific comment chain is about the concept of if there is a definite threshold, that a company must be larger than, in order for it to have monopoly power. > The only thing these cases say is that it is theoretically possible for a company with 50% market share to hold monopoly power Yes. That was the point that I was making. That a firm with 50% market share could hold monopoly power. That was it, and I was making no more points than that. The other person that I was responding too has incorrectly strict definition of "monopoly power", in that he believes that there has to basically only be a single firm in the market, that is backed up by the government, in order for it to have monopoly power. And thus I have provided definitive evidence, that the courts have held, that his threshold is incorrect. And I was making no other points, other than to say that it is false to claim that in order to have monopoly power, a company much be "the only game in town", and backed by the government, as the person I was responding to incorrectly claimed. > it's not relevant to Epic's lawsuit It is relevant, because the courts have not ruled what the relevant market is yet. Even though Epic is initially trying to define the market a certain way, ultimately, the market could be determined as something else. I agree that there are interesting questions here, to be decided, as to what the market is. But, unfortunately, it is not really possible to have a discussion with someone about the interesting questions, if they are going to spread misinformation on the uninteresting, and completely uncontroversial parts. At this point, it took me paragraphs and paragraphs, when the original commenter who was engaging dishonestly, and ignoring court precedent and information on government websites, all in order to try and establish an uncontroversial point that they were contesting, which is that a company can have monopoly power, even if they are not the only singular firm in the market.