3 ms·
Sub-headline of the article: > Apple can maintain its App Store payment monopoly while the case proceeds Literally both judges said it was NOT a monopoly, and
by syspec 5y ago
Sub-headline of the article:
> Apple can maintain its App Store payment monopoly while the case proceeds
Literally both judges said it was NOT a monopoly, and the ruling is not "apple must stop being a monopoly" (which is the only way that sub-headline makes sense).
Is this a kind of "manifest destiny" kind of thing, where they are trying to will it into existence?
- everforward 5y agoNobody said Apple doesn't have a monopoly on App Store payments. I'd be shocked if even Apple tried to argue that, because it's obviously false. They determined Apple does not have a monopoly on mobile gaming (iirc); the scoping of the two statements is quite different.
- skinnymuch 5y agoThe two judges are saying it isn’t a monopoly. That doesn’t not make it a monopoly. There are countless things the status quo officially allows or says things are a certain way. That does not make it true. Judges and many influentials in the Justice system repeatedly give almost no punishments to white collar crime. Yet the same people many times say justice is being served in the country. A more direct example: Courts still rule that gerrymandering for the purpose of screwing over the other party is allowed. Of course wink wink they say it isn’t allowed. However some basic obvious lying is all that’s required to allow this. It’s still politically motivated and undemocratic gerrymandering/voter suppression. Regardless of what judges or the Justice system says. Laws and the Justice system are just that. They aren’t beacons of principle or morality.