They're trying to establish a precedent that would limit all monopolistic behaviour, including theirs. Obviously their motivations are to make it easier for them to compete, but it won't make it easier for them to become a monopoly.
What part of the law forces companies to sell things they don’t want to? Or to force the creation of a retail marketplace on their own ecosystem?
It will likely require a new legislation to force the regulation of App Stores as public utilities.
Violating the Sherman act requires demonstration of monopoly or restraint of trade. Any ISV has many channels and platforms with which to sell its wares, so this will be hard to prove. Asking for a retail cut % isn’t restraint of trade.
The ISVs like Epic want more profit for themselves by forcing the regulation of app stores as public utilities, so that like a power generation company, they can compete separately from the distribution system. That is a tall order to prove that it’s more in the public interest than in the ISV’s interest.
If you've read the law, you'll note that you are not required to have a monopoly to fall afoul of the antitrust laws. The usual proviso is along the lines of "X is prohibited where the effect of X is to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." (see, e.g., 15 USC §13).
If your customers made a choice to choose a platform with a highly-controlled walled garden as the only means of installing software then you should respect that and either adhere to the terms of said garden or not enter that market.
You're thinking like a company that cold calls people on the do-not-call registry or something.
This assumes people buying Apple devices did it because they want a walled garden. I don't think that's true, I think it's the opposite. Most users dislike it.
Obtuse example: I think the vast majority of Fortnite players would have (much) preferred to pay Epic's cheaper rate.
Doesn't matter, the behaviour is still monopolistic, but even if we cede that point it's absolutely a duopoly. Fortnite is also banned on Google play, they've lost access to over 90% of the mobile market. The Sherman Act isn't about being a monopoly, it's about exploiting an unfair degree of leverage.
But either way that's not my point. Epic establishing a precedent that restricts the degree to which companies can dominate a supply line and then use that position to skim isn't going to make it easier for Epic to dominate you, the consumer. That's not their objective. That is Apple's objective.
They absolutely do have standing. 15 U.S.C. §15 allows for injured parties of anti-trust violation to sue for treble damages. This is separate to and beyond any criminal charges the DOJ can bring.
If courts determine that Apples behavior violates anti-trust laws, it is unlikely that they would find that Epic was not an injured party.
