4 ms·
It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.
by ChrisLomont 5y ago
It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal.
- newaccount2021 5y agono, only HN seems stuck on arguments like this
- Supermancho 5y ago> It then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. The argument is not "bigger". It is exactly the same. If we're not a monopoly (Apple), how can we be anti-competitive?
- dannyw 5y agoThere are laws against anticompetitive behaviour in California. Those apply to all companies, irrespective of monopoly status.
- Supermancho 5y agoOk? That doesnt explain what the phrase : > (the judgement) then leaves a bigger argument for reversal on appeal. is supposed to mean by "bigger argument".
- ChrisLomont 5y agoYes, those laws in California are not uniform among states. If Apple is not a monopoly and violating Federal Law, then on appeal, to higher than state laws, the case is more likely to reversed. Since other states do not have the same laws of California, the Supreme Court will likely apply Federal Law, not California law, on appeal. Epic is headquartered in NC, after all. Thus this will fall under interstate commerce clauses, and California law only applies to transactions in California.