While it makes an awesome headline for a tabloid or HackerNews, it's not necessarily imporant. See comments on Reddit that provide some thoughts on that:
Obviously, I don't claim these two comments are correct. I do claim, however, that people are better served by not quoting random statements from a lawsuit without understanding either the context or the applicable law. Especially when only one side in the lawsuit is quoted from.
Those Redditors don’t know what they’re talking about. Documented evidence of two competing companies agreeing to “operate as one” is absolutely damning in an antitrust trial. There’s almost no context that could be given to make that statement not damning unless it turns out this was some sort of antitrust training seminar put on by the legal department and it was given as an example of what not to say when you’re giving the opportunity to collude with the competition.
By "damning", do you mean that the quote alone is obviously sufficient to materially tip the scales in favor of the government should the antitrust lawsuit occur?
If so, what is your best guess as to why the executives (who surely know that) might have chosen to use those words?
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/p970st/after_another...
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/p970st/after_another...
Obviously, I don't claim these two comments are correct. I do claim, however, that people are better served by not quoting random statements from a lawsuit without understanding either the context or the applicable law. Especially when only one side in the lawsuit is quoted from.