Right but is that actually illegal given the fact that you can sideload apps it’s not like they’re locking people out of their devices.
I don’t like it but I’m not sure it necessarily meets the criteria for illegality.
This makes this decision seem stupid. I don’t quite understand how US law works but I thought it was precedent based which meant that once one case had been decided that essentially decided all similar cases unless they were demonstrably different. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case here.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25047547/236883_Epic_Vs_Google_B_CVirginia.jpg)
Google was giving preferential treatment to certain companies and had a bunch of backroom deals going on and generally very anticompetitive behavior.
Right but is that actually illegal given the fact that you can sideload apps it’s not like they’re locking people out of their devices.
I don’t like it but I’m not sure it necessarily meets the criteria for illegality.
This makes this decision seem stupid. I don’t quite understand how US law works but I thought it was precedent based which meant that once one case had been decided that essentially decided all similar cases unless they were demonstrably different. I don’t understand why that isn’t the case here.
Having a “monopoly” isn’t illegal.
Using your “monopoly” position to pick winners and losers is.
Small addendum, I believe having an unfair monopoly is actually illegal in the US. Google search is currently on the hook for this.
Yeah, it’s not just the market position.
It’s how you gain the market position and what you do with it.