Department Of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and others are looking very closely at how this lawsuit goes, as they consider what’s fair and what’s monopolistic. But that blog’s Florian Mueller believes that, when the Appeals Court rules in a few weeks/months, it may send elements of the case back to the trial court to reconsider - in particular market definition.Īnd why is this a big deal for you, or for other platforms? Because the U.S. So what is likely to happen next? Again, I would refer you to a FOSS Patents summing-up, if you want to go deep into possibilities. Android duopoly) and a monopolized aftermarket (the iOS App Store on iPhones.) But Epic’s claims were rejected because the Judge felt they didn’t prove a competitive foremarket (iOS vs. Market definition is a big point that the Appeals Court will rule on: this is where it gets complex - and the best I can offer is this FOSS Patents blog from September. ‘Switching costs’ are a major point of contention: as Ars Technica notes, “Both sides also went back and forth on whether iPhone users were truly ‘locked in’ to the iOS ecosystem, and whether the prospect of high switching costs prevents users from moving to other platforms if they want.” Switching costs are a ‘big deal’ in antitrust lawsuits, and Judge Rogers didn’t think Epic had mapped them well in the original suit. Epic rebutted - per the CNS report - that “Apple does not have the right to ‘lock out’ horizontal competition and prevent developers like Epic Games from offering their own app store.” The idea of the App Store ‘walled garden’ is still under attack : Apple says the App Store model is a “lawful vertical restraint” to stop malware, hacks, porn, and other breaches. And here’s the most interesting parts of it: (It’s a free/paid news service for lawyers, and so seems good at describing overcomplex legal rummaging.)Īnyhow, this conversation went ‘big picture’ again for that hour. And for a high-level overview, we actually dug this Courthouse News Service report the most. We looked around for the best coverage of the hearing. Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - a sorta Abba-style judicial supergroup - hung out with Epic and Apple’s lawyers for just over an hour, and had a public chinwag about the whole situation. Nonetheless, Apple appealed this verdict, in great part because the one thing that was meant to happen - “in 90 days, iOS apps can link to other purchase mechanisms & sign-up methods” - had the potential to be both a short and long-term issue for the company.Īnd so, we get to this week, where the U.S. But she wasn’t a massive Apple fan either… The court was never likely to open up app stores or change percentage cuts.” antitrust lawsuit.Īnd - just summing up my subheds from that piece : “The vast majority of Epic’s allegations were rejected… The judge wasn’t very happy with Epic’s ‘all guns blazing’ attitude. District Court judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had ruled against Apple in one notable ‘anti-steering’ area” of a wide-ranging U.S. So, when we last left our protagonists - Apple and Epic - back in September 2021 - you may recall that “U.S. (Artist’s depiction of a walled garden via a Minecraft build, of course.) Apple: latest from the three wise judges? And game companies, ping them to donate matching funds for an upcoming ‘winter fundraiser’. antitrust lawsuit between Epic Games and Apple.īefore we start, shout-out to the Video Game History Foundation non-profit for a fascinating article on what happened to Maxis’ SimCopter for the N64. And we’ve got another packed newsletter for you this week, starting out with a look at the latest arguments in the U.S. Happy mid-week, fans of video game discovery and platform, uh, drama.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |