Apple is a big company that makes iPhones and other gadgets. Some people at the government think Apple is not playing fair with other companies and apps because they control too much of what can happen on their devices. Apple says this is not true and that it will harm how they make new things for people to use. The judge will decide if the case goes forward or not. If it does, it might take a long time before anything changes. Read from source...

1. The title is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Apple is challenging the DOJ's antitrust case based on some new or novel theory of liability, rather than simply arguing for a dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that it lacks merit and evidence.
2. The article focuses too much on the government's complaint and Apple's response, without providing enough context or background information about the case, its history, and the relevant legal principles and precedents. This makes it harder for readers to understand the nature and scope of the dispute and the arguments of both sides.
3. The article uses vague and ambiguous terms such as "anticompetitive conduct", "substantial anticompetitive effects", and "monopoly power" without defining or explaining them clearly. These terms are often subject to interpretation and debate, and their meanings may vary depending on the perspective and assumptions of different actors and stakeholders in the market. The article should provide more clarity and specificity about how these concepts are applied and measured in this case.
4. The article quotes Apple's statement that the court should "reject the invitation to forge a new theory of antitrust liability" without questioning or challenging this claim, or providing any alternative or opposing views. This creates an impression that Apple's argument is uncontested and undisputed, which may not be accurate or fair. The article should also consider the possible implications and consequences of adopting such a new theory, and how it would affect the balance and dynamics of power and innovation in the market.
5. The article mentions that the DOJ's lawsuit follows similar moves by other regions, such as the EU, to curb Apple's power. However, it does not provide any details or examples of these previous cases or actions, nor does it compare or contrast them with the current case. This makes the article incomplete and lacking in context. The article should also explore the possible motivations and objectives behind these regional initiatives, and how they relate to the broader global competition and regulation landscape.

Negative
Explanation: The article discusses the challenges that Apple faces from the DOJ's antitrust case. This implies a potential threat to the company and its core principles, as well as its ability to innovate. The lawsuit could also challenge the business model of the tech giant. These factors contribute to a negative sentiment towards the situation. Additionally, the fact that Apple has to defend itself against the lawsuit suggests a lack of stability or confidence in the market's perception of the company.