If you've followed the case, it's clear what anti-competitive harms Epic is alleging from the iOS app distribution market.
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...
I'll leave it here.
Wow, did you seriously paste a link without reading it? Open Markets Institute did not file an amicus brief in Epic vs Apple. What you linked to is an amicus brief in the matter of Shah vs VHS San Antonio, a substantially different case which pre-dates the Epic lawsuit. Seriously, click on your own link.
OMI did release two paragraphs about Epic vs Apple in the form of a press release. Did you think that was an amicus brief? I'm starting to think that maybe you don't know what an amicus brief is.
> this is already disallowed under the Sherman act
No, it isn't. You do know that the Sherman act doesn't make it illegal to operate a monopoly, right?
> If an OS maker had sued Apple for tying a device to the OS, it would be illegal under the Sherman act too.
You've just demonstrated that you don't understand what "tying" is in the context of antitrust.