<story><title>Epic vs. Google: Google Loses</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/23945184/epic-v-google-fortnite-play-store-antitrust-trial-updates#stream-entry-65d34a06-1fa5-4eab-abf6-ce450441b543</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>AnthonyMouse</author><text>There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor&amp;#x27;s donuts.</text></item><item><author>wilg</author><text>Seems like you could make that apply to any product right? If you can define the market as literally just your own product? Like if Joe&amp;#x27;s Coffee has a dominant market position in selling Joe&amp;#x27;s Coffee it would be monopolistic to use that to advantage to sell donuts?</text></item><item><author>AnthonyMouse</author><text>&amp;gt; Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal.&lt;p&gt;So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution...</text></item><item><author>TerrifiedMouse</author><text>&amp;gt; If the result of this case is &amp;quot;you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down&amp;quot;, that&amp;#x27;s terrible!&lt;p&gt;Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal.&lt;p&gt;E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder market.</text></item><item><author>Wowfunhappy</author><text>Apple doesn&amp;#x27;t &lt;i&gt;need&lt;/i&gt; to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they&amp;#x27;ve made alternate app stores completely impossible.&lt;p&gt;If the result of this case is &amp;quot;you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down&amp;quot;, that&amp;#x27;s terrible!</text></item><item><author>kulahan</author><text>For anyone curious &lt;i&gt;why&lt;/i&gt; Google lost:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down.&lt;p&gt;Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple&amp;#x27;s case much, but of course I should mention I&amp;#x27;m not a lawyer; I&amp;#x27;m perfectly happy to be schooled if someone more knowledgeable comes along!</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sidlls</author><text>They aren&amp;#x27;t preventing anyone from buying a competitor&amp;#x27;s donuts. At one point I had both an Apple and a Google Android phone. Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet&amp;#x27;s from coming into its stores to sell its coffee. That&amp;#x27;s not monopolistic behavior.</text></comment>
<story><title>Epic vs. Google: Google Loses</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/23945184/epic-v-google-fortnite-play-store-antitrust-trial-updates#stream-entry-65d34a06-1fa5-4eab-abf6-ce450441b543</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>AnthonyMouse</author><text>There is a difference between selling donuts in the coffee shop and preventing anyone who drinks your coffee from buying a competitor&amp;#x27;s donuts.</text></item><item><author>wilg</author><text>Seems like you could make that apply to any product right? If you can define the market as literally just your own product? Like if Joe&amp;#x27;s Coffee has a dominant market position in selling Joe&amp;#x27;s Coffee it would be monopolistic to use that to advantage to sell donuts?</text></item><item><author>AnthonyMouse</author><text>&amp;gt; Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal.&lt;p&gt;So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution...</text></item><item><author>TerrifiedMouse</author><text>&amp;gt; If the result of this case is &amp;quot;you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down&amp;quot;, that&amp;#x27;s terrible!&lt;p&gt;Monopolies aren’t illegal. Only the abuse of a monopoly position to advance your interest in other markets is illegal.&lt;p&gt;E.g. It’s not illegal to be the only seller of gasoline in the country. It is illegal though to bundle laundry powder with gasoline sales to corner the laundry powder market.</text></item><item><author>Wowfunhappy</author><text>Apple doesn&amp;#x27;t &lt;i&gt;need&lt;/i&gt; to strike secret deals to keep out alternative app stores because they&amp;#x27;ve made alternate app stores completely impossible.&lt;p&gt;If the result of this case is &amp;quot;you can have a monopoly as long as your device and ecosystem are 100% locked down&amp;quot;, that&amp;#x27;s terrible!</text></item><item><author>kulahan</author><text>For anyone curious &lt;i&gt;why&lt;/i&gt; Google lost:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Epic v. Google [...] hinged on secret revenue sharing deals between Google, smartphone makers, and big game developers, ones that Google execs internally believed were designed to keep rival app stores down.&lt;p&gt;Without finding the same thing in Apple, I doubt this will affect Apple&amp;#x27;s case much, but of course I should mention I&amp;#x27;m not a lawyer; I&amp;#x27;m perfectly happy to be schooled if someone more knowledgeable comes along!</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>rezonant</author><text>And, to extend the analogy, paying the coffee patrons you think might consider opening a competitive donut shop next door to avoid that from happening (ie Google).</text></comment>