So if it “well defined” by the DOJ, you should be able to find a specific example where a minority vertically integrated platform vendor was declared a “monopoly” and specific remediation steps were enforced. Not a Wikipedia article.
If that were the case, every single console maker since the mid 80s would be declared a monopoly. Why hasn’t that happened?
> you should be able to find a specific example where a minority vertically integrated platform vendor was declared a “monopoly” and specific remediation steps were enforced.
I already told you that the market defining process is a very case-specific one and big techs now are unprecedented. Why are you trying to find applicable prior arts on such cases? You asked how Apple can be monopoly on a market and I gave you one possibility which may or may not materialize due to its uncertain and complex nature. It's pretty hard to understand why you're being so defensive on this issue?
> If that were the case, every single console maker since the mid 80s would be declared a monopoly. Why hasn’t that happened?
There has been multiple antitrust lawsuits and investigations on Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft for their gaming consoles while their exercise of monopolistic power was nowhere comparable to Apple's nowadays. Why don't you google just 2~3 words before making such a false claim?
I already told you that the market defining process is a very case-specific one and big techs now are unprecedented. Why are you trying to find applicable prior arts on such cases?
Maybe because I don’t believe that people can randomly make up definitions instead of citing precedent?
There has been multiple antitrust lawsuits and investigations on Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft for their gaming consoles while their exercise of monopolistic power was nowhere comparable to Apple's nowadays. Why don't you google just 2~3 words before making such a false claim?
Well seeing that Nintendo specifically has been very strict about what was allowed on its platform, forced third parties to use its manufacturing facilities since the 80s, forced all software whether distributed physically or virtually to be licensed and to pay a fee and had a much larger marketshare, where was the government intervention? Where were the consent decrees? Lawsuits?
Please provide one citation where any of the console manufacturers were ever forced to change their business practices?
If my claim is “false”, you should easily be able to find a citation.
> Maybe because I don’t believe that people can randomly make up definitions instead of citing precedent?
While you're trying to frame my argument as "make up definitions", the reality is not; this is a standard practice since 1982. Spend your time on searching and studying the topic, not mine. This is an area of vast complexities and I don't think it's effective to spend my time to enlighten you.
> where was the government intervention? Where were the consent decrees? Lawsuits?
Your ignorant in the topic doesn't necessarily mean an actual lack of a prior. In Nintendo v. Atari case, there was not much arguments on the market definition, but its practice was illegal or not. Yes, I've been talking only about the market definition and you're intentionally conflating the concept of the relevant market definition and antitrust violation. Don't do that. And please don't even try to say "come up with evidence". You can spend your time on studying this.
The person who makes the argument has a responsibility to show citations.
And your citation were about hypothetical arguments, and went to show more of my point. All throughout the article it speaks about the government’s arguments being “defective” and still doesn’t show a single example where a vertically integrated minority player was called a “monopolist” nor where government imposed remedies or sanctions were implied.
In fact, Atari vs. Nintendo affirmed that Atari did in fact violate Nintendo’s copyright when it tried to circumvent Nintendo’s control over its platform.
So in fact, you still haven’t come up with a single precedent where Apple could be considered a “monopolist” on its own platform or where they are violating “antitrust”.
If that were the case, every single console maker since the mid 80s would be declared a monopoly. Why hasn’t that happened?