> The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market.
Your definition is missing a key point, which is you have to possess sufficient market power in the primary market in order to use to gain an advantage. If you lack market power, it doesn't matter what you do because you lack the ability to coerce consumers. As the Supreme Court put it:
If one of a dozen food stores in a community were to refuse to sell flour unless the buyer also took sugar it would hardly tend to restrain competition in sugar if its competitors were ready and able to sell flour by itself. (Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States)
> It is shocking to me that Apples lawyers, would allow Apple to so blatantly threaten Epic in this way. They are providing a clear example of anti competitive behavior, for Epic to use in future litigation.
Epic violated the terms of Apple's developer agreement by deliberately hiding their payment processing code to get it past app review. Hiding functionality is considered an egregious violation of the developer program and grounds for termination of your entire account. Apple has the right to terminate their contract for that violation alone, regardless of whether you think the terms relating to in-app purchases are lawful or not.
Framing this as retaliatory or a threat is hyperbole. One party violated the terms of a contract, so the other party is exercising their right to terminate.
> You would think Apple has good enough lawyers to put a stop to this self defeating behavior.
Do you really think you have a better grasp of antitrust law than their legal team?