> You're acting as if your perception of moral right and wrong These are not moral argument, lol. These are legal arguments. The arguments are, that accordin

> You're acting as if your perception of moral right and wrong These are not moral argument, lol. These are legal arguments. The arguments are, that according to the sherman anti-trust law, what matters is market power. Thats it. That is a legal argument. It has nothing to do with morals. > The DOJ will need to make a legal case against Apple Yes, they have to make a legal argument. And the legal things that matter, in an anti-trust case, is market power. > But saying that Sony isn't an antitrust case I already told you why this is the case. it is because Apple has way more market power than Sony does. That is a legal argument, not a moral arugment. But even if we want to say that the same precedent should apply to the playstation or the XBox, well I'm actually ok with that. A world where anyone could make games for these consoles, doesn't sound to bad too me. > Apple sells a minority of smartphones worldwide and hovers around 50% in the US I think that it is pretty clear, that Apple has quite a lot of market power. This is a legal argument, not a moral one. Market power is relevant to anti-trust. > on the fact that MS was a software maker, forcing hardware makers into illegal contracts. So then you unironically believe that if Microsoft created every computer in the world, at a hardware level, and owned this multi trillion dollar hardware business entirely, that they would have been allowed to engage in anti-competitive practices? Really? I understands that microsoft got in trouble for anti-competitive practices in the hardware market. But that does not change that fact that if they owned the entire multi-trillion dollar hardware market, that they absolutely would have been also hit by anti-trust law. In fact, they would have been hit even harder if they also owned all computer hardware in the world, and were engaging in anti-competitive actions.