I recognize those statements, but I still think they are unclear. Being entitled to a commission, or payment for intellectual property could mean many things.

I recognize those statements, but I still think they are unclear. Being entitled to a commission, or payment for intellectual property could mean many things. In order to be 100% on this interpretation, I would have liked to see the judge directly state what is the whole point of all of this, if there is no possible price benefits to this. If there is zero economic gains to be made, through directing people out of app, then why make this ruling. But yes, I recognize how the statements you are talking about, could be interpreted that way. I just don't see how the judge directly addressed this problem I'd have with the ruling. IE why overturn anti steering rules if the things you steer too give apple the same exact commission?