Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that MS was a software maker, not a hardware maker. This doesn't matter. If microsoft built all of the computer hardware in the world, as well, then there is absolutely no way that society would let them engage in anti-competitive practices. Instead, that would be even worse , as it would show microsoft having even more market power. Take a look at the railroads as a similar example. The railroad companies built th…
We agree on about 90% here, so I'm not sure why you keep making false statements about verifiable history. The fact is that the MS anti-trust case in the US absolutely did hinge on the fact that MS was a software maker, forcing hardware makers into illegal contracts. If you want to talk about European antitrust actions against MS, okay, go ahead, but those are not a precedent for the US DOJ. If you want to talk about…
These are not moral argument, lol. These are legal arguments.
The arguments are, that according to the sherman anti-trust law, what matters is market power. Thats it. That is a legal argument. It has nothing to do with morals.
> The DOJ will need to make a legal case against Apple
Yes, they have to make a legal argument. And the legal things that matter, in an anti-trust case, is market power.
> But saying that Sony isn't an antitrust case
I already told you why this is the case. it is because Apple has way more market power than Sony does. That is a legal argument, not a moral arugment.
But even if we want to say that the same precedent should apply to the playstation or the XBox, well I'm actually ok with that.
A world where anyone could make games for these consoles, doesn't sound to bad too me.
> Apple sells a minority of smartphones worldwide and hovers around 50% in the US
I think that it is pretty clear, that Apple has quite a lot of market power. This is a legal argument, not a moral one. Market power is relevant to anti-trust.
> on the fact that MS was a software maker, forcing hardware makers into illegal contracts.
So then you unironically believe that if Microsoft created every computer in the world, at a hardware level, and owned this multi trillion dollar hardware business entirely, that they would have been allowed to engage in anti-competitive practices? Really?
I understands that microsoft got in trouble for anti-competitive practices in the hardware market. But that does not change that fact that if they owned the entire multi-trillion dollar hardware market, that they absolutely would have been also hit by anti-trust law.
In fact, they would have been hit even harder if they also owned all computer hardware in the world, and were engaging in anti-competitive actions.