3 ms·
I am not a lawyer, but to me this seems like they were the market leader in smartphones at the time and using that monopoly to monopolize another market.
by salem 15y ago
I am not a lawyer, but to me this seems like they were the market leader in smartphones at the time and using that monopoly to monopolize another market.
- rbarooah 15y agoBeing the market leader doesn't give you a monopoly in any market, and certainly not in a young and growing one.
- salem 15y agoConsidering that Steve Jobs wanted to "destroy" Android, they were at least headed in that direction, and at the time, they had the majority of the smartphone market, i.e. phones where you could actually buy an ebook.
- rbarooah 15y agoThese things are irrelevant to the definition of a monopoly.
- ajross 15y agoAnd the definition of a monopoly is irrelevant to the DoJ case being discussed. So it appears everyone is even. (edit: crap, just realized I'd been tricked into responding to rbarooah again. Apologies all.)
- rbarooah 15y agoWhen was the last time you saw anyone on HN directly insult someone else here in such a mean and insidious way? You wrote that edit just to try to hurt and undermine me. I think this is the first time I've seen anything like it here, and it has a really unpleasant schoolyard bully vibe to it.