Epic’s argument was, as expected, dismissed out of hand Supreme Court precedent is extremely skeptical that there are single brand markets, and the primary exception ( Eastman Kodak) is only applicable if customers are unaware of aftermarket limitations at the time of purchase.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers disagreed with both, defining the market as ‘mobile game transactions’.
Best mac app for creating blog posts android#
Apple, on the other hand, argued that all of digital gaming was a market, including not just Android but also consoles and PCs.
Epic argued there is a smartphone market consisting of iOS and Android, and then on iOS there is a distinct “iOS App Distribution” market, and downstream from that a “iOS In-App Payment Solutions” market. The most important part of any antitrust case is market definition. What was surprising, though - and, frankly, a much more interesting question for the Court of Appeals - is that Judge Gonzalez Rogers also issued an injunction banning Apple’s anti-steering provision while I do think Apple’s anti-steering provision is anti-competitive, this injunction is an odd outcome of this specific case, and a source of much confusion about what this decision was actually about. That is indeed what happened: Apple won, and it wasn’t particularly close Epic has already filed an appeal, but I doubt it will succeed. Apple is both straight-forward and predictable I wrote that the iPhone company would likely win when the lawsuit was filed, and argued that the law was firmly on Apple’s side in App Store Arguments. The vast majority of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decision in Epic v.
0 kommentar(er)
