I think externally it's tempting to see Google and Apple's app marketplaces as the same thing, but that is more indicative that one's experience is merely as a

I think externally it's tempting to see Google and Apple's app marketplaces as the same thing, but that is more indicative that one's experience is merely as a user. Despite both presenting similarly to users, they're operated differently and each has different objectives and challenges - that's where the evidence in this case was centred. Both stores are successful and desirable but that is not criminal - one has to prove that these came about from illegal activity, in many cases this has to be shown as deliberate, because it is trivial to attribute any and every action to malice if one is willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary. About that: some voices in HN (and theverge.com) are particularly two-faced this way, willing to be generous with one company's intentions while being unyielding and conspiratorial with others. The courts aim to be consistent this way (precedence is their foundation) - and this often doesn't gel with oft-repeated ideals that really aren't anything more than fan fiction.