> 1. Apple is not next, which is the main point
Sure, I agree with that point. I disagree with the rest of your framing why, which was a dismissal that "Apple won on the same claims in front of a different judge". The judge in Epic v Google didn't render the verdict (as that was performed by the jury), while the judge in Epic v Apple did.
> 2. The sanctions are 100% irrelevant here? Why do you think they mattered?
Sanctions mattered as far as explicitly informing the jury that they were permitted to assume the worst against Google. If you don't think that might have impacted the jury's decision, I don't know what to say. The fact that the judge who later handed down the punishment thought that the sanctions were necessary should also be relevant to any harshness associated with his ruling.
> And yet, the judge decided today that he would not issue a “mandatory inference instruction” — one that would tell the jury they should proceed with the understanding that Google destroyed evidence that could have been detrimental to its case.
> Instead, there will be a “permissive” jury instruction — the jury “may” infer that the missing evidence might have helped Epic and hurt Google.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/1/23984902/judge-james-dona...
> 3. The legal portion would have still been decided by a judge anyway - juries decide facts, not law. The judge decided the relevant market, etc.
Yes, Donato decided the punishment (to the extent that the law gave him discretion to do so), but it was a jury that decided that Google exercised illegal monopolistic behavior. The judge doesn't have discretion to completely disregard the jury's verdict, as per the seventh amendment.
The aforementioned behavior on Google's behalf certainly didn't help garner any favor with Donato.