> The issue is that the judge invented a market that nobody considered to be a market before the trial. Not true. I'll just quote from the ruling: "Epic propo

> The issue is that the judge invented a market that nobody considered to be a market before the trial. Not true. I'll just quote from the ruling: "Epic proposed two single-brand markets: the aftermarkets for iOS app distribution and iOS in-app payment solutions, derived from a foremarket for smartphone operating systems. Apple, by contrast, proposed the market for all video game transactions, whether those transactions occur on a smartphone, a gaming console, or elsewhere. The district court ultimately found a market between those the parties proposed: mobile-game transactions—i.e., game transactions on iOS and Android smartphones and tablets."