gatorguy said: So I'll presume you'll now be patient enough to see if the DoJ legal professionals educated in antitrust law raise any of those same points and how they present the case, assuming there is one. It's absolutely beyond you or me to affect it.
If the DOJ cites Bainian market power as part of their lawsuit then it won't have anything to do with the App Store, which in turn won't have anything to do with the EU or the DMA.
Gosh, we kinda agree!
Nothing about a US antitrust case would be concerned with EU policies or market share, just as the EU isn't crafting policy based on US law or market share. Good thing too, since the EU would be heavily regulating Apple instead of treating them as having too small a footprint to matter in much of their market.
But I will disagree with you about the AppStore not being a primary focus of antitrust action if it is filed, and not the sole Apple practice either, and that both market share and market power plays into it. Your last remaining objection seems to be the word "Banian," so does simplifying it to "market power" make it more palatable for you?
That said, by now I'm confident you've realized the basic premise for your opinion that "market share is irrelevant" is wrong, and that's what led to the back and forth posts since.
gatorguy said: That said, by now I'm confident you've realized the basic premise for your opinion that "market share is irrelevant" is wrong, and that's what led to the back and forth posts since.
My comments about market share weren't wrong. Carnegie already admitted that Section 1 of the Sherman Act wasn't related to market share. Apple had a teeny/tiny slice of the ebook market and was prosecuted under Section 1 anyway. And in Section 2, market share is merely a preliminary qualifier. It's the actions of the company and the effect those actions have on consumers and the market that really matters in Section 2. Epic already failed in U.S. federal court with Section 2 arguments so ultimately Apple's market share WAS irrelevant to a successful prosecution.
gatorguy said: That said, by now I'm confident you've realized the basic premise for your opinion that "market share is irrelevant" is wrong, and that's what led to the back and forth posts since.
My comments about market share weren't wrong. Epic already failed in U.S. federal court with Section 2 arguments so ultimately Apple's market share WAS irrelevant to a successful prosecution.
Read the judge's comments. Epic attorneys erred in arguing the "relevant market". From the judge himself after the ruling:
"Given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic."
In case you missed it I'll offer it again: According to the judge in the Epic case Apple is only saved by the fact that its (market) share is not higher...
gatorguy said: That said, by now I'm confident you've realized the basic premise for your opinion that "market share is irrelevant" is wrong, and that's what led to the back and forth posts since.
My comments about market share weren't wrong. Epic already failed in U.S. federal court with Section 2 arguments so ultimately Apple's market share WAS irrelevant to a successful prosecution.
Read the judge's comments. Epic attorneys erred in arguing the "relevant market". From the judge himself after the ruling:
"Given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic."
In case you missed it I'll offer it again: According to the judge in the Epic case Apple is only saved by the fact that its (market) share is not higher...
gatorguy said: That said, by now I'm confident you've realized the basic premise for your opinion that "market share is irrelevant" is wrong, and that's what led to the back and forth posts since.
My comments about market share weren't wrong. Epic already failed in U.S. federal court with Section 2 arguments so ultimately Apple's market share WAS irrelevant to a successful prosecution.
Read the judge's comments. Epic attorneys erred in arguing the "relevant market". From the judge himself after the ruling:
"Given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic."
In case you missed it I'll offer it again: According to the judge in the Epic case Apple is only saved by the fact that its (market) share is not higher...
Comments
Nothing about a US antitrust case would be concerned with EU policies or market share, just as the EU isn't crafting policy based on US law or market share. Good thing too, since the EU would be heavily regulating Apple instead of treating them as having too small a footprint to matter in much of their market.
But I will disagree with you about the AppStore not being a primary focus of antitrust action if it is filed, and not the sole Apple practice either, and that both market share and market power plays into it. Your last remaining objection seems to be the word "Banian," so does simplifying it to "market power" make it more palatable for you?
That said, by now I'm confident you've realized the basic premise for your opinion that "market share is irrelevant" is wrong, and that's what led to the back and forth posts since.
"Given the totality of the record, and its underdeveloped state, while the Court can conclude that Apple exercises market power in the mobile gaming market, the Court cannot conclude that Apple’s market power reaches the status of monopoly power in the mobile gaming market. That said, the evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share. Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because plaintiff did not focus on this topic."
In case you missed it I'll offer it again: According to the judge in the Epic case Apple is only saved by the fact that its (market) share is not higher...