Ok ok I shouldn't have used "steals". My emotions got the better of me. Venezuela kept some oil the U.S. bought. But the charges of Narco-terrorism against Maduro are ridiculous.
The patent system is a oke. They should have something like temporary patents with lifespans from 3 mo.s to 3 years. Or rule saying they can allow a limited number of copycats as long as they try to differentiate at minimum a little.
I was looking for an explanation of why apple and google received such a difference in outcomes.
1. Apple had to post a link that said Epic's product could be purchased at elsewhere
2. Google has to do a lot more. Like actual anti-trust punishment things
IMHO, these two should be both punished because the duopoly is pretty self-evident.
From what i could grep (and it's dumb): The problem lies in the structures of both monopolists. Apple has never ever let any one else make smartphones, and it's walled garden is completed, so the court can't compel it to open up and let others (like epic) play. So a link is all they have to do. Android smartphones do allow other app stores, but Google makes it hard to install them, highly discourage them, and google pays developers to not release on other app stores. So google has an "open" market but behaves like a monopoly. So the judge is trying to "level" the market and punish google for acting like a monopolist.
I think apple should get the same treatment, but how?
