However, it seems unarguable that Apple has the tougher challenge here. The original ruling was a compromise – one that we predicted – and it’s possible that the appeal decision will likewise be somewhere between the two positions.
9to5Mac’s TakeĪnyone who predicts what will happen at the end of a court case is either brave or naive. In particular, whatever the outcome of this appeal, it is certain that the losing side(s) will appeal to the Supreme Court, so the third parties may decide to wait until then. However, it is not yet known whether the latter three will apply for permission to be heard. California (speaking on a state-specific issue).A lawyer speaking for 35 state attorneys general.We may potentially hear from five different parties: Those misconceptions culminated in a sentence according to which Apple’s market share in smartphones is smaller than in smartphone operating systems, though we all know that no iPhone is sold without iOS and iOS is never sold without an iPhone. Mueller also points to the sloppiness of the judgement, as well as one absurdity within the ruling which appears to suggest the court did not understand the most fundamental of facts. But he has argued this from legal precedent, rather than any feelings of his own. It should be noted that the site’s Florian Mueller is a developer, and makes no secret of the fact that he believes Apple should lose the case. It’s a cross-appeal as Epic is appealing the dismissal of its federal antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, while Apple is appealing the consolation prize Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers handed Epic in the form of an anti-anti-steering injunction under California state law (Unfair Competition Law). Apple App Store antitrust appeal on October 21 in San Francisco
The Ninth Circuit will hear Epic Games v. Epic Games versus Apple appealįoss Patents reports that the appeal hearing has been scheduled for Friday, October 21. Although technically neutral, labelled as “in support of neither party,” the DOJ’s submission favors Epic’s argument that Apple does have monopoly control of the iOS app market.Īdditionally, the attorneys general of 35 US states have also joined forces to submit an amicus brief that again argues that Apple does have monopolistic powers. The Department of Justice antitrust division filed what’s known as an amicus brief – a statement from an uninvolved party which is intended to help the court reach the correct decision. The iPhone maker, in turn, is arguing that the court made a legal error when considering the anti-steering issue.
Both Apple and Epic Games filed appeals on different aspects of the ruling.Įpic is appealing the ruling that the App Store is not a monopoly, arguing that there is no other way for developers to sell iPhone apps other than through Apple. The court ruled that Apple must allow developers to steer app users to external payment platforms, but concluded that the company did not meet the legal tests to be considered a monopoly – and thus did not have to permit competing app stores for iOS apps. The appeal hearing has now been scheduled for October 21, and it looks set to be an uphill battle for Apple.Īpple and Epic will each get only 20 minutes to make oral arguments, but we may also be hearing from the antitrust division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and potentially also an argument on behalf of 35 state attorneys general – each of which is effectively siding with Epic … BackgroundĮpic Games sued Apple for not allowing it to use its own payment platform instead of in-app purchases through the App Store, with Apple taking a 30% cut. Last year’s Epic Games versus Apple ruling left neither side happy, with both the developer and iPhone maker filing appeals against the judgement.
0 kommentar(er)
