4 ms·
In the Apple case the judge defined the relevant market as "digital mobile gaming transactions" and that Apple is not legally a monopoly there in part because o
by enragedcacti 2y ago
In the Apple case the judge defined the relevant market as "digital mobile gaming transactions" and that Apple is not legally a monopoly there in part because of competition from Google, Nintendo, and Stadia (lol). A suit from another company could result in a different market determination and a different outcome without being inconsistent with that ruling.
- DannyBee 2y agoI'm very aware of the legal intricacies. As for whether someone else will win, maybe, maybe not. Look up res judicata. Keep in mind - the judge deciding the market is x will not affect whether it is considered the same set of facts. So if you filed a case with the same facts, or very similar facts, you wouldn't escape res judicata on the grounds that you think the market is different. You would have to come with a different claim than federal antitrust law (state unfair competition law in a different state or something) or significantly different facts. In any case, i strongly doubt apple is next given the state here.
- enragedcacti 2y agoAgreed entirely, though I don't think a different set of facts is a particularly hard hill to climb. Possibly as simple as "the plaintiff makes products that aren't games and/or Apple directly competes with the plaintiffs offerings" e.g. Hey or Spotify. Finding that plaintiff who also has a ton of money and has a controlling interest who is at least as hardheaded as Tim Sweeney is a whole different issue, especially since the Automattic guy is so busy right now.