DOJ is smart. It is not gunning for Apple because it is a monopoly. It is gunning for it because it is preserving the monopoly using anticompetitive tactics. That is how they are going to get Apple.
Like you say below, it's counterintuitive. They are being accused of being a monopoly (which has not been proven). To then prove they are abusing that monopoly.
Attorney General Merrick Garland cited a key principle of US antitrust law in today's news conference — one that is little-known but is a critical part of today's suit.
It is not illegal to hold a monopoly, Garland said.
Correct. Especially since they are not one. Mono (one). There is another option, Google Android. So, Duopoly would be the correct phrasing for Apple.
That may sound counterintuitive in a case intended to fight monopolies. But under US antitrust law, it is only illegal when a monopolist resorts to anticompetitive tactics, or harms competition, in an effort to maintain that monopoly.
"Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record,
the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins,
these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.
Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 185"
epic_v_apple_order.pdf
www.eff.org
Pretty sure you can't have a monopoly on the device. Since there are many other devices out there.
You should be able to have a monopoly on your operating system. I can't see how they will be able to go after them for that. The only other thing is the store. Which was proven to not be a monopoly or abusing it if it was.
I don't think they can claim Apple is abusing its monopoly if it isn't defined as one. I'm not a lawyer but, that wouldn't make sense to me. And in the court of public opinion. They would not get much support from the public to go after Apple with terms of "monopoly" and "abuse of power". Without having proven them as being one.
That is what the US Justice Department alleges Apple has done.
Among other things, the DOJ says Apple has used its control over iOS, the iPhone operating system, to block innovative new apps and cloud streaming services from the public; degrade how Android messages appear on iPhones; restrict how competing smartwatches can work with iPhones; and hinder rival payment solutions.
Edit: for clarity
Let's start with Android messages.
1) They communicate with each over fine via SMS and MMS. It works exactly how it has always worked. It isn't something you can force Apple or Google to make work better. It's an annoyance, not breaking some law. People have options to use other methods of communication that works better, is cross platform, AND is free.
2)Block innovative new apps. Seriously? The list of apps that would be blocked was known from BEFORE the store existed.
3)Cloud streaming services are now allowed fully by Apple. So that should have been removed. And by the way. Where are they now that they are allowed? Micro$oft..... "crickets"....
As for competing smartwatches and rival payment solutions. Sure. That you can go after them for.
edition.cnn.com
9to5mac.com
