I fully understand the sentiment, but let me try to hack your comment, and play the devil’s advocate:
* Law works in mysterious ways: a victory for blatant reasons might be expressed with a rationale from the judge that triggers worst outcome. I hate the laws because of that (or rather, lawyers for being so clueless about economic assumptions behind recommendations) but that makes every nuanced decision so much more enjoyable.
* A victory from the big, profitable company against a new business model (OK, I might have forgotten a moral decrepitude from one party in that description; thing is: law often does, too) means that jurisprudence might end up appearing a lot more in favor of winners, i.e. against competition and for established monopolies. Might: let's see what gives, but please remember that having a vivid tech scene does rely on a handful of counter-intuitive decisions that were made against allowing Standard Oil to offer cheap gas, against Microsoft for offering a simple, working solution, against Google simplifying their privacy statements. Competition law is counter-intuitive and unsatisfying.
Of Microsoft's simple solution was "working" (something like the original Chrome before Google made it into IE:The Next Generation with their proprietary pile-ons, the gnashing and wailing would not have happened. It was their proprietary crap defacto monopoly browser that led to the complaints.
Technically, the quality of the browser was immaterial to the EU Competition authority investigation, and a good browser (as it was at the time the investigation was suggested, an eon ego by tech standards) might have made things worst. The political support for the investigation came later, wasn't neutral to the outcome and was then triggered by the quality of the software. Administration works in mysterious ways, and the European Commission’s are strangers than Cthulhu's.
* Law works in mysterious ways: a victory for blatant reasons might be expressed with a rationale from the judge that triggers worst outcome. I hate the laws because of that (or rather, lawyers for being so clueless about economic assumptions behind recommendations) but that makes every nuanced decision so much more enjoyable.
* A victory from the big, profitable company against a new business model (OK, I might have forgotten a moral decrepitude from one party in that description; thing is: law often does, too) means that jurisprudence might end up appearing a lot more in favor of winners, i.e. against competition and for established monopolies. Might: let's see what gives, but please remember that having a vivid tech scene does rely on a handful of counter-intuitive decisions that were made against allowing Standard Oil to offer cheap gas, against Microsoft for offering a simple, working solution, against Google simplifying their privacy statements. Competition law is counter-intuitive and unsatisfying.