> So it should be an open and shut case then shouldn’t it?

No thats not what I said. I don't think that you haven't actually paid attention to anything that the judge said, or the opinions of the supreme court.

Instead the important question in this trial is based on what the market is defined as, and not the irrelevant stuff that you are bringing up.

That is the important question here.

But it is not at all controversial, that a company does not need to be a singular firm, in order to break anti-trust law.

Thats not controversial. The judges agree with me. The supreme court agrees with me. You are disagreeing with the multiple pieces of case law.

Instead, the question that matters, is what the market is defined as.

So, for example, if the market is defined as "smartphones", then that means that Apple has 50% of the US smartphone market, and therefore there is a good chance that Apple falls under anti-trust law.

If, instead, the "market" is defined as the game console market, as Apple is trying to claim, then the argument gets much harder that Apple would fall under anti-trust law.

So, the question at hand, is, is the market "iPhones", "smart phones", "game consoles", or maybe even "general computing devices".

And depending on which of these market, the iPhone falls under, then apple court either be breaking anti-trust law, or not. But the fact that they don't have a literal, singular monopoly is not the question at hand that matters.

I would really recommend that you read up more on anti-trust law. Because I am not saying anything controversial here.

> But you know the actual judge in the case must not have read the website.

The judge actually agrees with me, not you. She agrees with me, that the important question that matters, is how we define the market. I would recommend that you listen to the trial hearings yourself, if you are able to find them online. You'd understand what I am saying to be true, if you had actually listened to the judge.

I know this, because I listened to the judge, live, say this in the court hearing, that the important part of the case is how the market is defined.

It is really funny that you are not aware of that, that the judge agrees with me on this, and is aware that one of the most important question at hand, which requires the trial, is how to define the market.

There are ways that you can attack this idea that Apple is breaking anti-trust law. But the ways that you are attacking it are not supported by the law, the supreme court, or the judges.

You should read up on the actual important questions at hand, in this case. Because there really are some interesting questions here. Specifically, the question is how the market is defined, which is the important part. But none of the stuff that you brought up are the things that the judges or lawyers care about.

Really not sure why you think that you know more than the supreme court, or the judge in this case. I got my information by listening directly to the judge, live.

If you would actually like to learn what the supreme court has said on the matter (Instead of just trolling, when it is clear that you haven't actually done any research on this issue), then I would recommend you read this link:

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

This link has actual references to specific supreme court decisions.

But I guess if you are not going to care what the courts says on the matter, which are the literal, ultimate authority on the issue, then I am not sure what to tell you.

You can physically go read the opinions of the courts on this yourself. They agree with me, not you. I am going to trust the opinion of this from actual judges the matter, myself.

But, if you are only willing to do a small amount of research of your own, then the case that I would recommend reading is "Hayden Publishing Co. v. Cox Broadcasting Corp", as well as "Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS" and "Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant"

These cases the judges found that a "party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%". In another one they rejected "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors"

Those are directly from the court cases. They are directly from the judges.