2 ms·
Sounds like the answer to "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store
by Apocryphon 3y ago
Sounds like the answer to "So did the Epic judge ignore the ruling of another judge where Apple was accused of behaving monopolistic in regards to the App Store?" is a NO, then.
- scarface_74 3y agoYou still don’t get it. Apple in no way shape or form had a monopoly on ebooks in 2013. There is a huge difference between monopolistic practices and collusion. You and I could have two competing taco stands in Nebraska and if we colluded to fix prices that would be illegal collusion even though it isn’t monopolistic. This is why HN users make bad keyboard lawyers.
- Apocryphon 3y agoSo what other ruling did the Epic judge not ignore or ignore? I don’t care about Apple being a monopoly or not in the context of this conversation. I am trying to establish judges ignoring precedence.
- scarface_74 3y agoWhat other ruling did the Epic judge ignore? She ignored the trial of the person who kidnapped Lindbergh’s baby, the OJ trial and literally millions of other cases that had nothing to do with whether Apple had a monopoly on the App Store. Even if there had been trial in a different district than where she SSD working and it didn’t make it the Supreme Court, there is no “precedence” to ignore.
- Apocryphon 3y agoOh, okay. Thanks