5 ms·
Really, that's not what this lawsuit was about, and the courts aren't supposed to tip the scales based the size of companies, are they? It's clear we need new l
by turdnagel 5y ago
Really, that's not what this lawsuit was about, and the courts aren't supposed to tip the scales based the size of companies, are they? It's clear we need new laws to deal with the problems at hand. The ruling seemed pretty even-handed based on the law, even if you disagree with it.
- nixpulvis 5y agoThey failed to even acknowledge the duopoly, simply reciting tired anti-trust. I'm by no means an expert, but surely someone must come along at some point and take a stand for something in order to implement the "new laws to deal with the problems at hand", no? Would we be living in a better world if only a different judge took the case? If you have a problem caused by a system you are unwilling to change, you cannot be surprised by the perseverance of that problem.
- jdminhbg 5y ago> simply reciting tired anti-trust That's the judge's job. They're not supposed to come up with novel solutions, they're supposed to apply the relevant case law.
- nixpulvis 5y agoA judge makes judgements.
- spzb 5y agoAnd bees make honey. What’s your point? Contrary to popular opinion, and as explained by the GP, judges only interpret the law, they don’t make it other than that their interpretations can later be cited as case law.
- MomoXenosaga 5y agoI agree. Unfortunately the politicians who make the laws are deeply in the pocket of business and too busy with the political circus to actually make laws.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoThe $6 million Epic (mentioned in the daringfireball piece) had to compensate Apple would've been better spent on lobbyists.