I think what you think the ruling said (Apple does not have a monopoly) and what the ruling actually said (that Apple's market share and profit margins aren't sufficient to demonstrate a monopoly in the digital mobile gaming transactions market, noting that there were unexplored arguments in even that case) are two very different things.
A legal case is decided on the arguments brought, weighed against current law. It's not some black/white definition of universal truth.
I’m saying if the high priced lawyers couldn’t come up with a convincing argument after researching and with a team of lawyers, why do you think you have “the one true argument” that could stand up in court?
Comments
I think what you think the ruling said (Apple does not have a monopoly) and what the ruling actually said (that Apple's market share and profit margins aren't sufficient to demonstrate a monopoly in the digital mobile gaming transactions market, noting that there were unexplored arguments in even that case) are two very different things.
A legal case is decided on the arguments brought, weighed against current law. It's not some black/white definition of universal truth.
I’m saying if the high priced lawyers couldn’t come up with a convincing argument after researching and with a team of lawyers, why do you think you have “the one true argument” that could stand up in court?
That's... not what I've been saying?