Share this:

Like this:

Epic largely lost to Apple, but 35 states are now backing their fight in a higher court

Epic Games may have largely lost its big lawsuit against Apple, but it does not go away without a fight - and it has some support in its corner. Shortly after Epic Games against Apple the ruling was handed down, Epic appealed, and over the past two days, a large number of organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of Epic's fight, including a coalition of 35 state attorneys, Microsoft and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). (The original decision has since been suspended after a court of appeal granted a stay.)

During the fight, Epic tried to argue that Apple has a monopoly on mobile gaming with the App Store, thus forcing Apple to take a smaller percentage of all the transactions that go through that store. If it managed to pressure Apple to accept alternative payment processors, it could dramatically change how Apple, the most profitable company in the world, operates its highly lucrative App Store. In the original case, the judge ultimately ruled in favor of Apple in nine out of ten cases that Epic brought against it, but both Epic and Apple appealed the parts they lost.

In an opening lawsuit filed last week, Epic argued that leaving the ruling "would change established principles of antitrust law and ... undermine a sound antitrust policy."

It now appears that more than half of the states in the United States, Microsoft, and the many more groups filing amicus briefs (filed by a person who is not a party to the case) are adding additional information that may be relevant) agrees with Epic, the company that lost all points except one in the original judgment because they believe Apple may also have a monopoly.

"Apple's behavior has hurt and harms mobile app developers and millions of citizens," the states said in their brief. "Meanwhile, Apple continues to monopolize app distribution and in-app payment solutions for iPhones, stifling competition and amassing over-competitive profits in the nearly trillion-dollar-a-year smartphone industry. Apple needs to account for its behavior during a full-fledged analysis."

"A broad decision for Apple could leave some room for a restrictive principle that prevents Apple from leveraging its control over iOS to rule out competition in countless adjacent markets," Microsoft said. "Google, the only other provider of mobile operating systems, could be empowered to do the same. There's a lot at stake for Microsoft and other companies that rely on antitrust law to protect competition for the benefits." (It should be noted that Microsoft was an important ally of Epic during the trial, when Epic even called Microsoft to the booth to testify.)

"A holistic review of the district court's factual findings will show that Apple has market power in app distribution and that its rationale for its restrictive App Store policies does not outweigh the anti-competitive effects of those policies," the EFF concluded. to his card. "Therefore, this court should find Apple's policies to be illegal under the Sherman Act. This result will give Apple the freedom to continue innovating for the benefit of its users, while innovation can also flourish outside Apple's walls."

Here is the list of organizations that have submitted amicus briefs. We have each uploaded their briefs to DocumentCloud, so you can read them yourself:

The United States also filed an amicus brief, although it did not support either party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share this:

Like this:

%d bloggers like this: