The court rejected Epic’s argument that the App Store provides distribution services, and instead found that the App Store provides two-sided transaction services, with app developers on one side and consumers on the other. Noting that the trial record suggests that Apple is “near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share,” Rogers stated that “Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps because plaintiff did not focus on this topic.” Monopoly Claims Are an Uphill Battle for Plaintiffs, Particularly in Two-Sided Markets ![]() The court’s ruling leaves open the door for future Section 2 claims. Said differently, plaintiff alleged an antitrust market of one, that is, Apple’s ‘monopolistic’ control over its own systems relative to the Apple Store.” The court ruled, however, that a product market limited to the App Store is untenable. As Rogers explained, “roadly speaking, Epic Games claimed that Apple is a monopolist over (i) Apple’s own system of distributing apps on Apple’s own devices in the App Store and (ii) Apple’s own system of collecting payments and commissions of purchases made on Apple’s own devices in the App Store. No Monopoly in a Market of OneĬourts remain skeptical of monopolization cases that allege markets that are limited to the product(s) of a single manufacturer. The court’s finding that Apple is not a monopolist with respect to the App Store, and therefore that it is incapable of an act of monopolization in the context of the App Store, is a tremendous weapon in Apple’s arsenal as it defends against a plethora of monopolization lawsuits in and outside the U.S., monopolization enforcement investigations brought by federal or state agencies, and legislative bids to restrict Apple’s business practices on the basis of monopolization. ![]() In terms of Epic’s antitrust case, Apple achieved almost complete victory, winning nine out of 10 counts. ![]() Some Key Takeaways Apple Achieved a Resounding Victory In addition to bolstering Apple’s defense in similar cases, the court’s decision sustains or raises the hurdles for plaintiffs in monopolization cases. In terms of federal antitrust litigation under the Sherman Act, however, Apple achieved a resounding victory. trial, neither party seemed a clear winner, with Apple’s stock sliding and mobile video game company shares jumping following the judge’s mixed decision. That is, after all, the very essence of a “meritocracy”.When Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued her decision in the high-profile Epic Games Inc. Sweeney maintains the Twitter verification process should be “a meritocracy,” as if that’s what Musk comping “a few” famous people against their desires who were unlikely to pay for it is.Īh, yes, certainly we can agree that the rich and famous– including the dead rich and famous–deserve more free things, even if they don’t want them, as long as it’s done to shore up the efforts of someone else who’s rich and famous. Sweeney, however, saw fit to take time out of his day to go on an extended rant about the complainants, calling them “losers and goons”. Speaking personally, the Macalope would rather dive antlers-first into a swimming pool full of silverfish than be tarred with a blue checkmark on Twitter at this point. “Epic’s Billionaire CEO Jumps On Twitter To Complain About Elites”Ī number of Twitter users have objected over the past few days to having blue checkmarks foisted upon them without their consent, making it appear as if they may have supported the efforts of libertarian trust-fund and government hand-out recipient Elon Musk to turn Twitter into his own personal litter box. What was Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, a man worth almost $5 billion, doing with his time right before this decision came down? Spending it on Twitter reliving not high school grievances against “the cool kids,” but junior high school grievances against “the cool kids.” On the plus side, the court also upheld the ruling against Apple’s anti-steering provision, so you may be able to go directly from the app to Epic’s site in order to be gouged for things that aren’t real. The Macalope has long been on the record as supporting App Store reform, but he has never believed the kind of reform that is needed would come about because of a lawsuit spearheaded by a company that runs its own store in some ways that would make even Apple blush but likens its fight against Apple to the fight for civil rights. ![]() If you want to be gouged for virtual goods by Epic, you must go directly to its site. Sadly, this means that Epic will be unable to set up its own store within iOS which it can use to directly gouge people for virtual goods.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |