What Tim is doing with this case is a laudable public service. Whatever your opinion of Epic, bringing this and the Apple cases to trial should be commended. We will all benefit greatly if Epic prevails, and we are no worse off if they do not. Epic is a major player across all relevant consumer platforms. If all they were interested in was making more money on iPhone and Android, I am certain they could have taken the easy road and negotiated a special contract for Fortnite on one or both of these platforms. This would have been much cheaper for Epic, put Epic in a more profitable position, and left all their competitors (and the rest of us developers) at a comparative disadvantage. This would surely have been the best move for Epic as a for-profit company. Instead, Epic altruistically took the hard road by forcing the tying behavior of Apple and Google to become the subject of major appellate-destined antitrust court cases. If either reached the Supreme Court, it would result in the first full ruling on the Sherman and Clayton acts as they apply to exclusive device-specific stores like the App Store and Google Play. Previously, we've only had Apple v. Pepper, which was narrowly about Illinois Brick (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illino…). The disposition of that case at the time it reached SCOTUS meant that the court was not being asked to rule on the kinds of questions that are present in Epic's cases. As a result, to this day, we still do not know how US antitrust law applies to devices nominally owned by consumers but controlled post-sale by their manufacturers via embedded technological restrictions. Epic's cases are our current best hope for finding out what our rights are as developers and as consumers. This US Law Minute was brought to you by Casey's predisposition to study US law in his spare time for no real reason.