> that suggests a minority market player can still be found to be misbehaving Great, so I am correct on that, and you repeated an incorrect mis-conception that

> that suggests a minority market player can still be found to be misbehaving Great, so I am correct on that, and you repeated an incorrect mis-conception that a supermajority is required. I provided sources, whereas you just asserted that a supermajority is required, without any justification at all, and were actually wrong on that. You can feel free to do more research if you want. Because I know that you will not be able find conflicting court precedent that says that a super majority is "required". The actual court precedent proves others. But I will remind you again, that you said this "because to do that you have to have a supermajority market share". And this is wrong, if you intended to say that a supermajority of a market is required for something to break anti-competition or anti-trust laws. Since I have shown you a definitively wrong statement, I'd reccomend that you use this as a wake up call, that you haven't actually looked into this enough to know what you are talking about. I can't provide hundreds of hours of teaching lessons to you, on how this stuff works, when you are getting basic facts like that wrong, unfortunately. > You have found, presumably by broad googling I have those sources saved, actually, because I got so annoyed at people repeating this very common and incorrect assertion that a supermajority is required for something to be illegally anti-competitive, when the court precedent is clear that it is not the case. So I looked into this enough, that I found extensive legal opinions on this saying otherwise. > a case It was not "a case". It was 3 cases. And if you had read or paid attention to the sources I posted, you'd see that it was 3, which makes me think that you didn't actually read them. You can either do the research or not. I don't care. I've done it, and found that it is absolutely not the case that a super majority is required, and I've pointed you to actual court opinions saying so. > Apple does not control either the mobile Actually, there is another court precedent that proves that actually, Yes, Apple has engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior, related to its control of the mobile market. It was the Epic vs Apple case. And in that case, there was an instance where, yes, Apple did engage in illegal anti-competitive behavior, due to its control of the market. > there is nothing to suggest that Apple Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple's behavior was illegally anti-competitive , actually. So that judge disagrees with you, and thinks that yes there is an instance where their control of the market is large enough, that they could engage in illegal, anti-competitive behavior. > why that applies to Apple The point being proven here, is that we have court precedent, even for Apple specifically, that yes their control of the market is large enough, where yes it is possible for their behavior to be illegally anti-competitive. Unfortunately, its not really possible to engage in the more complicated discussion of how it could apply to messager, if you aren't even willing to accept 2 basic premises, which is that Yes it is possible for behavior to be illegally anti-competitive, without a supermajority, and 2 Apple has already been ruled to have a large enough share of the market, that some behavior could be illegally anti-competitive. These are basic facts, and in order to move on from that, you'd need to have actually read a couple hundred pages of the Epic Vs Apple case, and watched the trials, like I have, if you want to understand Apple specifically.