the court then has a limited understanding of what a fine line they are walking, both in legal and practical terms. Many laws and tests - especially the one us

the court then has a limited understanding of what a fine line they are walking, both in legal and practical terms. Many laws and tests - especially the one used to determine monopolistic practices - are horribly outdated and based on ideas and assumptions from before the internet age. That the court failed to see how an app store where an unregulated corporation makes rules without oversight, repercussions or much legal precents - is indeed skirting the line of what constitutes a monopoly is tragic. Take a look at that judgement - not a single example exists there for digital monopolies. The insidious part of a digital monopoly - as already pointed out - is that there is no precedent and apple are now the digital equivalent of highwaymen. Expect this to happen more often to the point where these laws and tests are updated for the modern age. One that i foresee is Amazon and their Basics line of products.