Reincubate just filed the lawsuit that changes how platform feature copying gets litigated. The company's complaint against Apple doesn't just allege copying—it threads together OS control, App Store leverage, and internal deployment as coordinated anticompetitive conduct. Camo launched in 2020 as a cross-platform webcam solution. Apple then shipped Continuity Camera in 2022, locked to its own ecosystem. But Reincubate's filing goes further than typical Sherlocking complaints, explicitly naming how Apple used its bundled position to disadvantage interoperability. This is the inflection where platform behavior moves from competitive practice to antitrust liability.

The lawsuit filing today establishes Sherlocking as a coherent antitrust violation rather than an accepted platform privilege. That distinction matters enormously for how technology companies think about feature strategy going forward.

Reincubate's complaint walks through the sequence methodically. Camo launched in 2020 as a utility app converting any smartphone into a wireless webcam for Mac or PC—solving the era when MacBook cameras lagged and remote work demanded better video solutions. The app worked across platforms. Apple's employees adopted it widely, with thousands running it internally, according to CEO Aidan Fitzpatrick. Early signals from Apple suggested collaboration.

Then came the pivot. In 2022, Apple shipped Continuity Camera—functionally equivalent but locked to Apple devices only. Fitzpatrick describes it plainly: "Once we'd proven it could be done and users loved it, they took it and built our features into a billion iPhones, Macs, displays, iPads and TVs, while shutting us out."

But here's where the lawsuit crosses from market complaint to antitrust claim. Reincubate alleges Apple didn't just copy—it "used its control over its operating systems and App Store to disadvantage that interoperable solution and redirect user demand to Apple's own platform-tied offering." That's the critical thread. Not copying alone. Not bundling alone. The coordination: copying technology, then weaponizing OS control and App Store policies to eliminate the original competitor.

This matters because previous Sherlocking incidents treated copying as separate from platform leverage. iMessage copying third-party messaging apps. Apple Photos copying third-party photo editing. Reminders adopting third-party task management features. Each treated as isolated product decisions. Reincubate's filing argues the conduct forms a unified anticompetitive scheme—technology transfer followed by platform-enforced market exclusion.

The legal foundation isn't novel but the specificity is. The lawsuit cites patent infringement but frames the core claim as monopoly leverage under antitrust law. Apple controls iOS and macOS distribution. It controls the App Store gatekeeping. It controls default privileges for native features. Combining all three against a competitor after copying their innovation creates, per the complaint, actionable conduct that goes beyond lawful competition.

Timing here is acute. The broader App Store antitrust battles have established precedent that Apple's bundling practices can violate law—but mostly on market access grounds. Epic v. Apple, EU Digital Markets Act enforcement, and ongoing regulatory scrutiny created openings. Reincubate's lawsuit arrives in that landscape with a cleaner narrative: prove copying, prove internal knowledge, prove platform suppression, prove causation.

For developers, the implication sharpens immediately. Features in the "Apple can copy" category—utilities, system integrations, cross-device functionality—now carry explicit legal risk if platforms combine copying with coordinated suppression. Builders pricing business models on platform differentiation face the calculation: Is the margin worth defending through litigation? Or pivot to vertical integration nobody can copy, or services nobody wants to.

Investors tracking platform durability should watch this closely. The thesis that Apple's ecosystem lock-in creates defensible moats assumes copying stays within competitive norms. If copying + coordinated leverage become prosecutable conduct, that changes platform economics. Bundled features stop becoming automatic competitive advantages. Interoperability arguments gain legal weight.

The comparison point is Microsoft's antitrust case—where bundling Internet Explorer with Windows eventually cost the company billions in settlements and forced concessions. That precedent took years to clear. But Reincubate's narrower claim—specific copying + specific leverage targeting specific competitor—might resolve faster. The facts are cleaner. The harm is measurable. The causation is traceable.

Apple hasn't responded to the lawsuit yet, which typically means defensive positioning during discovery phase. The company will likely argue Continuity Camera represents independent development, standard platform evolution, and that any App Store friction against Camo reflected policy application rather than targeted suppression. Discovery will determine whether internal emails document copying intent—that's where similar cases often turn.

Reincubate's lawsuit establishes Sherlocking as legally prosecutable when platforms coordinate copying with OS/App Store leverage. For builders, this creates new risk layers for feature strategy—interoperability now carries defensive upside. For investors, platform control durability faces questions it hasn't before: Can bundling remain automatic moat if copying + coordinated suppression becomes liability? For enterprises evaluating app strategies, bet on features unique enough that platforms won't copy or vertical enough that platforms can't suppress interoperability. Watch discovery—internal emails documenting copying intent will determine whether this becomes precedent-setting or dismissed as standard competition.