With only a passing knowledge of the field, I'm aware that the standard of monopolistic effect varies between the EU and US (neither specifically uses financial size as the standard). In the EU it's about whether there is sufficient competition in the market, whereas in the US it's about whether the price is sufficiently competitive.
In US it's basically "whether there's harm to the consumer", which is so nebulous that large monopolists can often successfully argue that their abusive practices are a net benefit (usually by arguing that prices are lower).
For me (IANAL), reading the judgment was initially shocking primarily for its facts and tone, rather than having any understanding of the legal consequences. I initially skipped over the phrase 'contempt of court' because the phrase seems so familiar from TV. But on reflection, it's the most consequential part of the document because, as you say, it has actual consequences for the people involved.
The article is saying ‘kinda’. The process works in lab conditions with highly purified ore, but produces an equivalent amount of chlorine gas and iron.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that consoles (and the vertically integrated business structure that they represent) inherently encourage more diverse kinds of games development while also attracting new buyers. Their business practices aren't ideal, granted. But it's not entirely clear to me that a walled garden constitutes a true monopoly. That is to say that the console makers aren't using their control over their own systems to force their way into adjacent, unrelated markets.
Also, the standard for what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour is different in the Americas, Europe, and Asia. The US uses higher pricing as the prime signal, whereas the EU uses a lack of viable competitiors.
It pulls at a compelling thread about the differential possibilities of design and the identities it's coded against. Anti-design is an inherently valuable approach to work. It can let us think about how to achieve the right client fit, the right product motivations, and the right overall system incentives. This isn't to agree (per se) that only bad clients want glossy design in prototypes, but rather to suggest that we as people self-segregate into particular visual cultures that may seem inherently bad to outsiders. Design, or the perceived lack of it, can be a form of (highly valued) in-group signalling that allows us to sieve out the wrong kinds of interactions.
I would think that software engineering is the exception that proves the rule: people with domain knowledge are highly motivated to share what they know, ask questions, consolidate knowledge, and refine processes using the Internet.
Working in another field (public services might be a good example) it’s often not possible to test out hypothetical solutions, or find relevant expertise, or to even discover that whole areas of knowledge actually exist. In that context, relevant qualifications have a little more weight.
You can go onto youtube and find dozens if not hundreds of people wanting to share their expertise with the world on every subject you could possibly imagine. "Qualifications" are just the result of a lobbying effort from those already in the industry to restrict supply in order to increase the rates they can charge.
> I would think that software engineering is the exception that proves the rule: people with domain knowledge are highly motivated to share what they know, ask questions, consolidate knowledge, and refine processes using the Internet.
Not my experience they don't want these people on the Netherlands not with my skin colour I guess.
