2 ms·
No, this is not the reason at all. Can you point to where in either lawsuit or decision this came up? The fact is these were two different lawsuits with differ
by mvdtnz 2y ago
No, this is not the reason at all. Can you point to where in either lawsuit or decision this came up?
The fact is these were two different lawsuits with different judges with disagreeing outcomes. It's a real shame it happened this way - I feel no sympathy whatsoever for Google but it's unfair that Apple is free to continue their anticompetitive practices while their only potential competitor is going to be hamstrung. At least in USA.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoA. Listen to Virtual Legality for almost a day’s worth of legal analysis by an actual lawyer. This was a substantial part of the reasoning, and why Epic’s own claim of anti-competitive conduct imploded. B. You’re assuming the facts are similar for Google, as to Apple, in regards to their legal standing. They are not.
- mvdtnz 2y agoI'm not going to listen to "almost a day’s worth of legal analysis" no. If you have a link to a part of the decision I'd be happy to read it.
- dagmx 2y agoI can’t find the published decision anymore but did read it, but there are several summaries of the discovery that show why Epic won https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitrust-play-store-fortnite-recap https://www.theverge.com/23959932/epic-v-google-trial-antitr...
- dagmx 2y agoNo, they were correct and you are not. The cases are fundamentally different, and rest on the actions the two companies took. Google actively harmed other stores. Apple has no other store to harm. In the Google case, epic was able to prove anticompetitive behaviour. In the Apple case they could not prove anything outside of anti steering. The judge doesn’t even need to factor in to the case at the point that Epic failed in the Apple case. They would have failed with any judge because their case was weakened by the lack of anti competition actions