Restraint of trade is only illegal under Sherman/Clayton antitrust acts for monopolies; you can make a deal that some company will only sell a product to you and that's ok as long as you're not the big fish.
So what the appeals court ruled was completely bonkers. They said preventing other payment systems was illegal restraint of trade, which is only illegal if Apple is a monopoly, but they also found Apple isn't a monopoly.
Maybe the ruling is designed to make it easy for the Supremes to take up the case?
What a dumb ruling.
Restraint of trade is only illegal under Sherman/Clayton antitrust acts for monopolies; you can make a deal that some company will only sell a product to you and that's ok as long as you're not the big fish.
So what the appeals court ruled was completely bonkers. They said preventing other payment systems was illegal restraint of trade, which is only illegal if Apple is a monopoly, but they also found Apple isn't a monopoly.
Maybe the ruling is designed to make it easy for the Supremes to take up the case?