Google Play Developer Antitrust Litigation

Microsoft was blocking competitors by requiring a fee for every processor sold by a manufacturer that offered Windows, whether that machine was sold with Windows or not, causing any other operating system sold on licensee machines to be more expensive for consumers. It wasn't bundling that was the issue in Microsoft Corp v Commission, it was tying applications together, such that if you purchase one application, you are forced to purchase another.

I don't see how it relates. Apple bundles software but does not sell what it bundles, nor even the OS, which is also free, nor is the consumer unable to remove that software or required to pay a licensing fee to Apple whether they run their OS or not, unlike with Microsoft Windows and Explorer. You can delete Safari and every application Apple bundles, including the OS, and you can not purchase it because it's free with the hardware. Apple is not tying applications, and there's nothing anti-competitive with their bundling.

Are class actions always at the federal level and not the state level?

Also lawyers wouldn't like that very much, camp lejune is being a pile of pain.

God no.

For starters, civil litigation does not have a goal of proving right or wrong, but settling disputes between two parties. This is actually a good thing. But what you are suggesting goes against the very basis of civil litigation systems :).

You see the same thing in say, divorces. People fight in court because they want a judge to tell them they are right and their ex is wrong, and mostly the judges tell them to grow up and act like adults.

One reason it's a good thing is that it enables you to use lower evidence standards to resolve disputes.

Most civil lawsuits (at least in the US) are preponderance of the evidence as a result - whose evidence is slightly better. This isn't always true, mind, you, but the point is that the goal of the system overall is to resolve disputes, hopefully efficiently and reasonably.

If you are looking for a system to decide who is right, that would be a very different system, and a very scary one at that, IMHO. It would also, among other things, take ~forever to resolve anything, and be even higher cost.

You would be raising the stakes dramatically - everyone would be much less willing to settle, and much more willing to fight about every little thing.

I'm not sure who or what such a system would serve. In reality, you want as few people in civil court as possible, for as short a time as possible. It is an amazingly high over head way to resolve a dispute, and the vast majority of disputes simply don't need it.

IE if you broke a simply contract with someone, it should not take 10 years, a judge, and a jury, to come to an agreement on how much to pay for it.

Serving some greater end would be a bad mismatch for how it was built, because in most cases, the main type of relief is monetary.

I am hedging in various places because there are specific laws and statutes that grant courts specific powers/remedies for certain types of cases.

Absent that, it is expect that monetary relief is the primary form of relief, and forcing people to do things only happens in the rare case money doesn't work.

The system actually sucks (relatively) for those other types of cases too because it wasn't really built for it. We've built special courts here and there to try to make up for it.