4 ms·
Does this mean there are separate rulings for Google and Apple? Does that mean the law is inconsistent?
by beaned 3y ago
Does this mean there are separate rulings for Google and Apple? Does that mean the law is inconsistent?
- dagmx 3y agoNo it doesn’t, because the cases are completely different. Google engaged in anti competitive practices by discouraging competing stores. Apple doesn’t have competing stores so there’s nothing to compete against. The law is consistent in that regard because of the scope of the subject matter.
- beaned 3y agoThat seems even more monopolistic?
- dagmx 3y agoMonopolies aren’t illegal. Certainly not within your own ecosystem. What matters is if using the monopoly position is used to impede competition. epic could not prove Apple was a monopoly outside their ecosystem. They could prove that Google abused their power within their ecosystem however.
- chairhairair 3y ago[flagged]
- xenadu02 3y agoI will only say there are two important legal issues to keep in mind in cases like this: 1. Every company is, in some respect or another, technically a monopolist with regard to its own products. Indeed if this were not true most would go out of business rather quickly. 2. Different legal standards apply to a company selling a finished product to customers vs a company licensing/selling a partial solution to other manufacturers who then sell a finished product to customers. If you are interested these two principles are a decent starting point for investigation.
- akira2501 3y ago> technically a monopolist with regard to its own products. Which is irrelevant because monopoly law considers whole markets including consumers and not individual products.
- xenadu02 3y agoThis principle has been noted in both trial court opinions and by SCOTUS so I think it has relevance. Thats why I said it is a good issue to research.