> The complaint charges that Google and Apple agreed that Apple would not compete in the internet search business against Google. [...]
IANAL, but how credible a threat must the potential competition be, for a sober judge to get interested? If Bob's Pizza Parlor got $10/year from Google for not competing in the internet search business - would that be anything but a bizarre joke? Similar for Apple - sure, they've got $billions. But also shareholders who don't want those $billions squandered. Apple's in-house expertise in developing and running internet search engines is ~nill. And how many companies, ever, have managed to create and profitably run an internet search engine - in a market with at least one established and profitable competitor?
With $lots_of_billions on the table, Apple's head negotiator might say all sorts of things, to squeeze yet more $$$ out of Google. (1)"Bing is offering us more." (2)"Customers are complaining that your search results are getting crappy." (3)"We'll set up our own search engine." (4)"We'll invent a time machine, and set both of Larry Page's grandmothers up with better husbands."
How many of those statements are credible? Legal? If (2) and (3) hit at Google's deep-seated fears, but (3) is not actually credible, is this any different (beyond the emotional cheap shot) than (4)?