So you are just going to completely ignore the actual judges that I quoted?
> But, the judge in this particular case
The judges have specifically agreed with me on the issue that I brought, which is that the important issue in the case is the market definition. Please do not try misdirect from what I am specifically saying here.
So, to restate, the important issues in the case are the market definition, and not anything that you brought up. And the judge agrees with me on this, regarding what the important issues are in this case, and do not agree with you on that.
Your argument may have had some legitimacy as a proxy when all were cases that may be similar to what is being argued about Apple.
But now we have something better - a real judge hearing arguments about the facts on the ground. Not just a laymen’s interpretation.
Especially in this particular case, the judge brought up consoles and PCs as Epic’s market and didn’t buy its attempt at defining the market in a way that was convenience.
> a real judge hearing arguments about the facts on the ground
The real judge agrees with me, and not you, and agrees with me that the important question about this case is what the market is defined as.
> the judge brought up consoles and PCs as Epic’s market
So you are now completely agreeing with every single point that I was making, and admiting that you were entirely wrong, and now recognize that I was correct for pointing out that the judge thinks that the important question for this case is how the market is defined?
That is what you are doing for pointing that out, lol. The judge agrees with me that the important points about this case are how the market is defined, and not anything that you brought up.
Every single article quotes the judge as being dismissive of the market being defined as being a manufacturers own devices. She specifically called out the similarities between the iPhone and the console makers.
She at no point showed any sympathy to defining the market as narrowly as the non-lawyers on HN would like it to be defined.
But the point that I was trying to make is, that your original comments, where you tried to disagree with the information posted on those government websites, are wrong.
The information on those government websites, are correct, in that controlling 50% of a market can subject a company to anti-trust law, and this is backed up by the court cases that I posted.
So, on the specific point only regarding the definition of a monopoly, you were wrong, and the government websites are correct.
Since I posted actual links, to judicial opinions, do you now understand why you were completely wrong, in your original definition of a monopoly, and that the government website is correct?
Everything else you are saying now is just an attempt to misdirect from your original, false statements.
> She at no point showed any sympathy
You are misrepresenting my point. What I am claiming is that the judge agrees with me, that the important question in this case is the definition of the market.
And the judge has not at all agree with your statements where you attempted to reject the information that was posted to you, on those government websites.
So, your original statements regarding those government websites were wrong, and the judge in this case has not said that the specific claims on those government websites are incorrect.
IE, your original comments, regarding that information, were wrong, and the government websites were correct. That is the only point I am making.
