> So then you're making the case that they do have a monopoly.
I'm making the case that the phone situation is the same as the console situation, and that if you condemn one you have to condemn them all.
In fact, the situation reminds me a lot of the Atari v. Nintendo case of the 1980's[1], where Atari sued Nintendo because Nintendo was controlling manufacturing, distribution, and allocation (in other words, Nintendo allocated manufacturing resources between games however it saw fit). Again, the argument here was quality control and consumer satisfaction.
The case was eventually decided in favor of Nintendo, but the lawsuits didn't wrap up until about 1994 or so.
I'm making the case that the phone situation is the same as the console situation, and that if you condemn one you have to condemn them all.
In fact, the situation reminds me a lot of the Atari v. Nintendo case of the 1980's[1], where Atari sued Nintendo because Nintendo was controlling manufacturing, distribution, and allocation (in other words, Nintendo allocated manufacturing resources between games however it saw fit). Again, the argument here was quality control and consumer satisfaction.
The case was eventually decided in favor of Nintendo, but the lawsuits didn't wrap up until about 1994 or so.
[1]https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-12-13-fi-193-st...