It's a valid thing to look into, but you have to look at the words in the lawsuit and apply them to the devices, services and components in the lawsuit and not who you like as POTUS.

 For instance the article you reference is correct in regard to market share, but also dilutes the "green bubble" into just a chat box color when it is actually about limiting features.  The "and incorporates limited functionality." part they didn't expand on.

 There's a lot in there for sure, and it's an interesting approach given it takes many facets of Apple's business model and attempts to create an overall image of monopolization.  I actually welcome that idea instead of just letting any company with 89.9999% or less market share immediately off the hook.

 But then again, when you provide superior service, you should be free to capitalize on that.  I imagine this lawsuit will drag on for years, and while it's not a textbook consumer protection action, there are areas where application of the law needs updated.

I don’t recall saying anything about who the president was, I just said, why did the DOJ pursue this case against Apple.

 I was directing my comment more towards the substance of your reference where it's complaining about Biden/Biden Admin.  

 

But because it seems so odd, it’s certainly worth asking the question if there’s something more going on behind the scenes.

 I'm not sure I'd classify this as "odd" as it is similar to other cases, like ones against Google or Microsoft.  I'd say the evidence structure is more "updated" for modern economic circumstances instead of just using a single hard number from the 1930's.

WebsterMark wrote on 03/25/24 at 03:25:04:


My guess as to why is that the DOJ got "woke" by the Epic case and decided to throw a bigger net over Apple and everything they do.  I personally don't think the case has real anti-trust merit, but they'll find something to make stick so it's not a complete waste of time and tarnished reputation.

ThumperPaul wrote on 03/25/24 at 10:28:42:


“We’ve got to protect our phoney, baloney jobs!”

When I was in sales, every time, a customer came in with a lconsultant, it was never good for the customer. The consultant has to justify his pay so he’s always going to object to something even if the deal is 100% perfect for the customer. Maybe that’s what’s going on here. They’ve got lawyers sitting around looking for something to do…..so they got to do something.