It's the logic of the comment I responded to. The existence of this upcoming trial alone is proof that the mere presence of alternatives is not enough to claim there's no monopoly in the relevant market.

[–] pandacoder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The (my) comment that you responded to presented you a list of actual monopolies that have no alternatives on their platform. There was no "logic" presented, it was a statement of observation.

The existence of the lawsuit does not mean there is proof, it means that Wolfire has enough of a case to begin discovery on two of their claims that the court is interested to find out more. That's it.

One of the claims is also very weird and I can't actually find any information corroborating the claim besides the claim itself (re: Valve acquiring and shutting down World Opponent Network). The only thing I see is that Sierra was acquired by Havas who made WON into it's own entity, then merged it with PrizeCentral under the name Flipside.com and the last WON game was released in 2006.

The only thing relating to Valve I can see is that Valve announced Steam in 2002 and then they removed WON from their own games, which they had every right to do so.

WG's strongest claim is the MFN clause, and they actually have to prove that it's for anticompetitiveness.