So when I asked you for reading material that might convince me of your side of the argument, to "get out of [my] bubble", the best you could come up with was a tangentially relevant amicus brief that you hadn't even read, and didn't even know to which case it was submitted?

You seriously don't have anything more substantive than that?

I have listened to hours upon hours of the actual court proceedings in Epic vs Apple. Have you listened to even a single minute of it? I found Epic's case to be muddled and oftentimes contradictory. Most of their ambitious claims fell quite flat when tested in court. It certainly isn't helped with Tim Sweeney making some fairly ridiculous claims on Twitter, e.g. that Apple's commission should be more like credit card rates. Fairly ridiculous when Epic run the own store, which they admitted isn't yet profitable at a 12.5% commission. And I'm really confused why they couldn't make money on 12.5% since the Epic Games Store is barely more than a shopping cart and game downloader.

Hoeg Law's final video includes a contextual refresher on the Sherman act. It's really worth listening to. Just six minutes, or three minutes at 2X speed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY&list=PL1zDCgJzZU...