6 ms·

The entire point of the court ruling is that it is not legally considered a monopoly, at least according to US antitrust law.

m00x 3y ago
According to the judge's interpretation of the US antitrust law*
- Spivak 3y ago
  That's true of literally every ruling of every case in history. If you're implying that they ruled incorrectly you're gonna have to provide an actual legal basis. A lot of court rulings are basically come down to, "I don't like the logic but it follows" and you just have to live with them.
- nodamage 3y ago
  Just like every other law? The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over decades of case law, this ruling comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the specific requirements of that definition (which were clearly not met by Epic here).
  - m00x 3y ago
    Yes, hence why it can go to higher courts and have another judge interpret the case. The judge makes a decision on their interpretation of the case and the law. This is a very important distinction in decisions.
    - simondotau 3y ago
      Epic failed spectacularly. They couldn't prove a monopoly, and even if they could, they were not able to point to any instance where Apple abused a monopoly position to turn the screws on customers or developers. There's really no interpretation needed.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - m00x 3y ago
        > Epic failed spectacularly That's not what I got from the case texts. Did you read them?
        astlouis44 3y ago
        M00x, you mentioned you know folks at Epic that are working on WebGPU. Do you mind sharing who they are? Because last time our team spoke with Epic, they mentioned they are not working on this (our company is a startup from Canada building tools and a platform-as-a-service to enable developers to bring their games to the web, and a large focus of our work has been building out a WebGPU backend and integration for Unreal Engine 5).
    - nodamage 3y ago
      Well at this point there's only one higher court they could go to (if they'd even take up the case). Frankly the case law on this subject is pretty well established and the judges have just been following existing precedent.
- sbuk 3y ago
  Who interpretation carries significantly more merit that any of the commenters here.

m00x 3y ago

According to the judge's interpretation of the US antitrust law*

Spivak 3y ago
That's true of literally every ruling of every case in history. If you're implying that they ruled incorrectly you're gonna have to provide an actual legal basis. A lot of court rulings are basically come down to, "I don't like the logic but it follows" and you just have to live with them.
nodamage 3y ago
Just like every other law? The legal definition of a monopoly has been refined over decades of case law, this ruling comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with the specific requirements of that definition (which were clearly not met by Epic here).
- m00x 3y ago
  Yes, hence why it can go to higher courts and have another judge interpret the case. The judge makes a decision on their interpretation of the case and the law. This is a very important distinction in decisions.
  - simondotau 3y ago
    Epic failed spectacularly. They couldn't prove a monopoly, and even if they could, they were not able to point to any instance where Apple abused a monopoly position to turn the screws on customers or developers. There's really no interpretation needed.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - m00x 3y ago
      > Epic failed spectacularly That's not what I got from the case texts. Did you read them?
      - astlouis44 3y ago
        M00x, you mentioned you know folks at Epic that are working on WebGPU. Do you mind sharing who they are? Because last time our team spoke with Epic, they mentioned they are not working on this (our company is a startup from Canada building tools and a platform-as-a-service to enable developers to bring their games to the web, and a large focus of our work has been building out a WebGPU backend and integration for Unreal Engine 5).
  - nodamage 3y ago
    Well at this point there's only one higher court they could go to (if they'd even take up the case). Frankly the case law on this subject is pretty well established and the judges have just been following existing precedent.
sbuk 3y ago
Who interpretation carries significantly more merit that any of the commenters here.