>Google billed Android from the start: an open platform with an open software market. Conversely, Apple has never allowed a secondary app market to develop on i

>Google billed Android from the start: an open platform with an open software market. Conversely, Apple has never allowed a secondary app market to develop on iOS outside of the App Store and have taken pains to prevent this whereas separate app storefronts are a feature of the Android operating system but Google has actively worked to undermine their market viability. So Apple has always been worse re. anticompetitive behavior, and even with all the shenanigans Android is a much more open platform. How does this help avoid the suprise that only a less worse player got punished? How does "always been bad" logic helps you transform it into "less bad"? The legal issue here is not "hypocrisy" where saying "open", but being "close" counts, but antitrust > For what it’s worth, I do think Google should have won this one, but either Epic has epic lawyers, Google’s lawyers walked in thinking this was a Grenada or both. Or neither, much more plausible that both groups were fine, see the article for a list of bettter reasons > whether it’s a Jury or Judge, you are relying on people to make a judgement call But those a very different people, as your justice Jackson could've said "different groups of people may have different conclusions in similar circumstances": we know more re. how some of those differences manifest when it comes to cases like this, where professionals are less jaded by "how the sausage is made", so you can't reduce it to "sometimes people make different judgement calls" Same with your doctors example: compare two different opinions of doctors to the set of different opinions of non-doctors, do you claim that those sets would be mostly identical?