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.
> 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.
In the Apple case the judge defined the relevant market as "digital mobile gaming transactions" and that Apple is not legally a monopoly there in part because of competition from Google, Nintendo, and Stadia (lol). A suit from another company could result in a different market determination and a different outcome without being inconsistent with that ruling.
As for whether someone else will win, maybe, maybe not.
Look up res judicata.
Keep in mind - the judge deciding the market is x will not affect whether it is considered the same set of facts. So if you filed a case with the same facts, or very similar facts, you wouldn't escape res judicata on the grounds that you think the market is different.
You would have to come with a different claim than federal antitrust law (state unfair competition law in a different state or something) or significantly different facts.
In any case, i strongly doubt apple is next given the state here.
Agreed entirely, though I don't think a different set of facts is a particularly hard hill to climb. Possibly as simple as "the plaintiff makes products that aren't games and/or Apple directly competes with the plaintiffs offerings" e.g. Hey or Spotify. Finding that plaintiff who also has a ton of money and has a controlling interest who is at least as hardheaded as Tim Sweeney is a whole different issue, especially since the Automattic guy is so busy right now.
