It's the JUDGE that came up with that reasoning.

Because that's the law, like it or not. Apple doesn't have a problem because the rules were the rules from day 1. Google did a bait and switch, legally.

What does antitrust law have to do with "day 1"? So if Ford and GM are both already in all 50 states and then they try to divide up territory between them, that's illegal, but at the point when there were still areas one of them wasn't in, they could publicly announce a contractual agreement to not enter into the other's territory? That seems not just questionable but actively bad policy with an enormous perverse incentive.

And if you're going to say this:

> Because that's the law, like it or not.

I would ask you to point me to the text in the statute requiring the courts to do that.

I think you missed the point that judges aren't part of the legislative branch. They're in the judicial branch.

Please allow me to correct my bad English and replace it with "the law circle".