Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly.
However, I see the argument to be made that in selling a Mac or an iPhone, you're being sold a general-purpose computing device with explicit value added by third-party software vendors. Also, on macOS, you were sold the explicit ability to run whatever software you want. It's purpose is to run software from third-parties.
When you bought a Tesla, that wasn't how the car was represented to you. It's purpose is to drive, and yeah it's got a sweet big screen that happens to run apps, but that's ancillary.
Legally, I think that matters. From a free-software perspective, I agree, I would also like to run whatever I want on my car.
I agree with that, and I think there would be a much stronger argument if Apple changed MacOS to remove this ability when it is a very well-established ability of the Mac platform. Of course, Apple almost certainly will not remove this ability, not because they want to be nice or they want to dodge antitrust allegations, but because they know that doing so would lose them customers.
But with iPhone, my argument is that this is absolutely not the expectation fostered by Apple's marketing or held by the vast majority of iPhone owners. Apple has always been very proud of its App Store and its (supposedly) strict vetting process to protect iPhone owners from malware, privacy violations, and other junk. Now, I personally think Apple should be much more restrictive about what apps it allows in the store, because there is a vast wasteland of abandoned apps and junk apps. If anything, the iPhone seems to have gotten less and less restrictive over time (the first iPhone didn't even support any third-party software, after all). I have a lot of trouble buying the argument that any significant number of iPhone owners expected to be able to run any third-party software they want to.
While I agree with the overwhelming majority of your reply, I'd suggest that the significant majority of iPhone owners expect to be able to run "any third-party software they want" because they expect substantially any third-party software they would want to be available in the App Store. Removing Epic is violating that implicit understanding.
They later removed that feature, causing a class action lawsuit, which they settled.
However, in order to get a key that works with their DRM or console OSs, you do need a license.
Yes, it does.
https://www.justice.gov/atr/monopoly-power-and-market-power-...
Apple unambiguously has this with their app store.
However, several of the claims Epic made in their lawsuit do require proving that Apple has monopoly power, which is going to be a difficult argument with their current 46% market share.
In either case, the standard legal approach is to throw the kitchen sink of claims, to see which ones stick. Most claims get rejected by the courts, but if you have a few that work, it's enough.
It also helps settle. If I have a dozen $10 million dollar claims, with a 5% chance of success each, a rational opponent will throw me $6 million to go away. If the parties settle, the kitchen sink approach is not a bad one to get a better settlement.
I don't think Epic cares to settle here though, they have more than enough money to keep this suit going for the next decade.
Instead of picking one sentence out of context, why not quote the entire thing? Does it still support your claim?
Here is your sentence in context for those who care about truth:
"the Supreme Court, in other cases, seems to have articulated standards for 'monopoly power' and 'market power' that, at least linguistically, are incompatible. In NCAA v. Board of Regents, [FN33] the Court defined 'market power' as 'the ability to raise prices above those that would be charged in a competitive market.' [FN34] By contrast, the Supreme Court has consistently defined 'monopoly power,' at least for section two cases, in accordance with the definition articulated in United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. [FN35]-i.e., as 'the power to control prices or exclude competition.' [FN36] Strictly construed, the Court's language appears to require a higher burden of proof to establish 'market power' than to demonstrate 'monopoly power,' because proof of a defendant's ability to exclude competition would not suffice to demonstrate the existence of 'market power.' Moreover, even the price portion of the du Pont monopoly power definition is broader than the NCAA market power standard because the latter ignores the ability to prevent price decreases."
Did you ignore what is current case practice? Did you ignore that the article cited more cases supporting my position than yours? Your out of context quoting is intellectually dishonest.
Some more quotes you ignored - go ahead and post them in context if you like.
"Most antitrust rules require the plaintiff to show that the defendant has or is likely to obtain 'market power' or 'monopoly power.' The offense of monopolization requires, of course, proof that the defendant has monopoly power."
"According to the Supreme Court's latest formulation, a tying arrangement is not illegal unless the seller has 'market power' in the tying product."
> Seriously. It clearly states what I said,
Yes, indeed. It's so clearly stated you removed the context that clearly states the opposite of what you said.
I guess I should have found a clearer explanation, since you quote things out of context.
Here's an easier read [1], and here's some legal standards applied from there with case citations:
Under cartels and collusion: "if the enterprise (as an economic entity) has not acquired a monopoly position, or has significant market power, then no harm is done."
Two questions:
1) Why did you remove the context of your quote?
2) Can you cite a successful anti-trust case where monopoly power was not shown in the proceedings?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law