![]() > Because it would be inappropriate to punish a firm for its natural monopoly in its own products, courts embraced a sweeping prohibition against analyzing alleged anticompetitive activity by focusing on single-brand relevant markets: "bsent exceptional market conditions, one brand in a market of competing brands cannot constitute a relevant product market." įor a much more thorough explanation see my linked comment below. I've explained why in detail elsewhere, but in short, the US legal system generally does not consider an aftermarket consisting of a single brand's product to be a relevant product market unless specific rules are met: ![]() The court will examine the market reality and examine how consumers actually behave to determine what the actual relevant market is, and it's unlikely that a court would find "iOS app distribution" to be a separate and relevant market for antitrust purposes. People keep saying this but in an antitrust case you cannot simply declare the narrowest market that fits your argument and expect the court to accept it. It’s just not a comparable thing, it’s a world with big lock-in. You have accounts with hundreds of apps, services. Mobile phones are on people at all times. It’s just not comparable to anything really that has existed beyond Windows/Mac which were/are entirely open. But let’s call a spade a spade: theres no smoking gun, but they are colluding, it’s just a silent “don’t lower yours and I won’t lower mine” nod.Įdit: further, with the amount of lock in they each have, there’s not much pressure anyway. You’re arguing semantics on one side then arguing generalities on the other. Sure, Epics specific case may be the only strategy they can take - they won’t find any documented collusion when there’s only two players, that’s obvious. I’m arguing the big picture, so feel free to engage there or not. You shifted from arguing from a purely theoretical view (if Epic had a market should they be regulated) to now arguing a very narrow view local to this case. We need to be “courageous” enough to use moral and logical thinking and not legalistic weaseling, we need to legislate them as new types of markets far bigger and more important to every persons life than any that’s ever existed. I don’t think narrow precedent should ever rule our thinking and especially when it’s clear there is no historical precedent here. ![]() It’s more akin to a world, people use them for literally every part of their lives. These platforms are nothing at all like “a market” and trying to argue from narrow historical frames is poor form. And it’s dominated by only two companies with a history of collusion. The average American spends some what, 4-5 hours a day on their phone? Is there any even remotely comparable precedent for a company to control all trade through everything? The best I can think of is cable, imagine if there were only two cable companies and they not only had unilateral ability to control which channels appear, but also charged 30% to every channels profit.įurther, how many different commercial activities do people do every single day on their devices? This is a far, far bigger thing than any platform before it. That won’t stop people from buying him, but just be prepared to be disappointed if that’s all you’re in it for.Īt the end of the day, there’s a lot of cool Fortnite collectibles out there prime for the gift giving this holiday season.“Conspiracy in restraint of trade” would fit perfectly what Apple/Google are doing. Monopoly: Fortnite Board Game BoardGameGeek Rank: Overall 23,637 5.3 Monopoly: Fortnite (2018) The game of Monopoly with a Fortnite theme. With The Foundation being revealed to be The Rock, we imagine he’ll be a hot collectible, but you’re probably not going to find his likeness underneath that helmet. Some of these figures can cost a pretty penny, so if you’re somebody who wants to pick it all up, be prepared to spend a lot of money. ![]() These will make for excellent gifts for fans of the game, and even yourself. You can take a look at the plethora of them here. The Monopoly: Fortnite Edition board game features updated locations as properties, and players earn Health Point chips instead of Monopoly money to stay in the game. On top of this, there’s also a whole collection of new action figures featuring skins from the game. It’s a nice touch, and unfortunately it doesn’t include any codes for the wrap itself, but it’s still a treat to see for longtime players of the game. As part of a new Nerf collaboration, Epic and Hasbro have teamed up to release a new gun that comes in the Camo Pulse wrap design from the hit battle royale.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |