Epic v. Google: everything we learned in Fortnite court
See all Stories
Bernheim shows us the chart Google used to downplay RSA 3.0 was showing active Android devices — including devices that had already been sold.
He also says that graphs that show no change after RSA 3.0 are flawed: “Of course you don’t see any change, the competitors are pretty insignificant; it might become significant, Google starts its conduct, and then nothing happens, you stay at this very low level.”
As far as the Macy’s example, he says Macy’s isn’t dominant in its market, and we treat dominant companies differently.
On rev-share: “If you are sharing profits with a competitor you are disincentivizing competition and that’s what the antitrust laws are designed to prevent.”
And he claims that Professor Tucker’s proposed market definition is far beyond what makes sense. “You can’t put transactions that satisfy different needs for different buyers in the same market,” he tells Judge Donato, additionally saying he’s not sure what to make of Tucker’s idea that a licensing arrangement between Google and an OEM is not a transaction.
