Several state attorneys general joined together to file an amicus brief to support Epic Games, and Apple claims this was done to "make it easier for them to win antitrust lawsuits." Microsoft also supported Epic Games, and according to Apple, Microsoft is simply "pursuing a self-interested business strategy of distinguishing itself from other platforms even while making 'hundreds of millions of dollars' from its partnership with Epic." To reverse, this Court would have to depart from settled law and ignore the district court's detailed findings of fact. Those are the hallmarks of competition, not monopolization. That should not surprise: Throughout the history of the App Store, it is undisputed that prices have only gone down, while output has exploded. After a 16-day bench trial, the district court found that Epic had failed to carry its burden of proof on every one of its antitrust claims. Apple also claims that Epic lacks standing to make further arguments about the App Store because it is no longer an iOS developer, as the Epic Games developer account has been terminated.Įpic had the burden to prove, among other things, that the challenged limitations were unreasonable restraints of trade under a framework the parties agreed on before trial began. To win its appeal, Epic needs to prove without a doubt that the first court's findings were erroneous, and Apple does not believe that's going to happen.Īccording to Apple, Epic made far-reaching claims at the edges of antitrust law that were unsuccessful, and there is no basis for the initial ruling to be overturned on appeal. Apple quotes several passages from the initial ruling that point out Epic's failings.Įpic built its case on witnesses who "lack credibility" and were "unreliable," whose testimony was "wholly lacking in an evidentiary basis," and who were "willing to stretch the truth in support of desired outcome." At trial, its theories were revealed to be "artificial," "misconceived," and "litigation driven." At every turn, Epic "failed to demonstrate," "failed to convince," "failed to produce," "failed to present," "failed to show," "failed to persuade," and "failed to prove" the facts of its case.Īpple argues that Epic is using the appeal to try to "change the narrative" because it can show no error in the district court's original ruling. In the brief, Apple argues that Epic Games lost the case not because of legal error, but because of its "unprecedented" and "unfounded" accusations of anticompetitive conduct. Epic lost, while Apple was subject to App Store changes that are on hold pending the outcome of the appeal.įollowing Epic's initial opening brief in January, Apple submitted its latest filing to the appeals court this afternoon. Apple case as neither company was satisfied with the outcome. Both Apple and Epic Games opted to appeal the original ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple's legal battle with Epic Games is continuing on, and today, the Cupertino company filed an opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |