Apple tells Epic judge to consider Supreme Court NCAA decision

AppleInsider

Apple's legal team submitted a decision by the US Supreme Court about the NCAA to the court over its lawsuit with Epic Games, claiming the decision "provides guidance" that the judge should consider for her own decision over the fate of the App Store.

Apple's main trial activity with Epic finished in May, with both sides now awaiting a decision from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on the matter. While the wait continues, Apple's lawyers are taking advantage of a Supreme Court decision to help its case.

The filing, spotted by Stephen Totilo, refers to the decision on the case of the National Collegiate Athletic Association v Alston, et al. The decision from June 21 is attached in full to the filing, intended to be read by Judge Rogers.

Apple's lawyers in its case against Epic just submitted a copy of this week's NCAA v Alston Supreme Court decision to the judge in Epic v Apple. They say it "provides guidance" on issues in the Fortnite case pic.twitter.com/8M6q6NMwvR

-- Stephen Totilo (@stephentotilo)

June 25, 2021

"The Supreme Court's opinion provides guidance on several issues in this case, including the analysis of procompetitive business justifications, substantially less restrictive alternatives to challenged restraints, and remedies," writes Apple's lawyers.

In that NCAA decision, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that the NCAA was immune from federal antitrust law. The unanimous ruling offered that attempts by the NCAA to limit compensation to student athletes, in a bid to keep them classed as amateur, should be subject to rule of reason analysis that apply to antitrust cases.

In explaining the submission, Richard Hoeg of Hoeg Law said the Supreme Court "put out a whole lot of language saying courts should be very careful about rule of reason findings." The need to be careful "undoubtedly helps Apple," Hoeg continued, with the filing being Apple "making sure that the judge knows that SCOTUS just said all of this on the rule that she is using to evaluate Apple's business practices."

Hoeg also believes Gonzalez Rogers "definitely knew" about the Supreme Court decision before Apple's filing was made.

Keep up with everything Apple in the weekly AppleInsider Podcast -- and get a fast news update from AppleInsider Daily. Just say, "Hey, Siri," to your HomePod mini and ask for these podcasts, and our latest HomeKit Insider episode too.If you want an ad-free main AppleInsider Podcast experience, you can support the AppleInsider podcast by subscribing for $5 per month through Apple's Podcasts app, or via Patreon if you prefer any other podcast player.

mr lizard

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

genovelle

I think it is more of an opportunity to put that ruling on the record because is helps their case. 

focher

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

bulk001

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

Yes, like all the other expert legal opinions posted here by lawyers! 🤷🏼‍♂️ Somehow I doubt that a search in DocketBird will reveal you to be any great legal scholar ….

tommikele

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

I appreciate your comment. So many people here and places like 9to5 comment about things they know nothing about, but wish to present themselves as experts or highly experienced attorneys with practices focused on the subject at hand. In reality, they are responding with emotional based fanboism and know nothing about the legal aspects of the topic. When you do have some direct experience and read this stuff you want to slap them (not literally) upside the head and let them know they may be fooling themselves, but not you.

In this case, Mr. Lizard is a pretty good example of it. He also spells patronizing with an "s" instead of a "z" indicating he is educated somewhere other than the US and probably a resident/citizen of the UK or Australia  or some other place where the Queen's grammar rules. That makes it highly unlikely he knows anything about the the US courts or the subject other than the articles his fanboism leads him to read. To sum it up, he probably doesn't know squat about this and his comment about the Judge reflects the ignorance and a lack of respect for the law and court system.

foregoneconclusion

Quote below is likely part of what motivated Apple to reference the SC ruling:

“Most restraints challenged under the Sherman Act—including most joint venture restrictions—are subject to the rule of reason,” which the Court “described as ‘a fact-specific assessment of market power and market structure’ aimed at assessing the challenged restraint’s ‘actual effect on competition’—especially its capacity to reduce output and increase price.”      https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u-s-supreme-court-unanimously-rules-1930875/

Think about the reality of the market before and after the introduction of the iPhone and iOS. Desktop software was considerably more expensive than what was offered for sale on iOS at launch and continues to be considerably more expensive today. So Epic's argument that iOS needs to be forced by the courts to allow a desktop style distribution system isn't actually based on market realities. Desktops provide alternate stores etc. and are "general computing devices" like Epic argues the iPhone should be considered to be, yet they don't provide better prices for software than the iPhone. How can you both claim the iPhone is the same as a desktop computer and should be forced to use the same distribution system as a desktop computer when that specific system hasn't provided anything better for consumers per price when you examine how the actual market for software works?

edited June 2021

dhawkins541

tommikele said:

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

I appreciate your comment. So many people here and places like 9to5 comment about things they know nothing about, but wish to present themselves as experts or highly experienced attorneys with practices focused on the subject at hand. In reality, they are responding with emotional based fanboism and know nothing about the legal aspects of the topic. When you do have some direct experience and read this stuff you want to slap them (not literally) upside the head and let them know they may be fooling themselves, but not you.

In this case, Mr. Lizard is a pretty good example of it. He also spells patronizing with an "s" instead of a "z" indicating he is educated somewhere other than the US and probably a resident/citizen of the UK or Australia  or some other place where the Queen's grammar rules. That makes it highly unlikely he knows anything about the the US courts or the subject other than the articles his fanboism leads him to read. To sum it up, he probably doesn't know squat about this and his comment about the Judge reflects the ignorance and a lack of respect for the law and court system.

I think you hit the nail on the head for the modern internet. We now have all these so-called "internet experts" or everything is a conspiracy of "big government" that finding intelligent logical dialog becomes muddled with garbage and even banter derails into nonsense.

lkrupp

dhawkins541 said:

tommikele said:

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

I appreciate your comment. So many people here and places like 9to5 comment about things they know nothing about, but wish to present themselves as experts or highly experienced attorneys with practices focused on the subject at hand. In reality, they are responding with emotional based fanboism and know nothing about the legal aspects of the topic. When you do have some direct experience and read this stuff you want to slap them (not literally) upside the head and let them know they may be fooling themselves, but not you.

In this case, Mr. Lizard is a pretty good example of it. He also spells patronizing with an "s" instead of a "z" indicating he is educated somewhere other than the US and probably a resident/citizen of the UK or Australia  or some other place where the Queen's grammar rules. That makes it highly unlikely he knows anything about the the US courts or the subject other than the articles his fanboism leads him to read. To sum it up, he probably doesn't know squat about this and his comment about the Judge reflects the ignorance and a lack of respect for the law and court system.

I think you hit the nail on the head for the modern internet. We now have all these so-called "internet experts" or everything is a conspiracy of "big government" that finding intelligent logical dialog becomes muddled with garbage and even banter derails into nonsense.

There are NO experts commenting on any tech blogs anywhere, especially Apple blogs that are dominated by fanboys, haters, shills, and paid trolls. Actual experts wouldn’t have the time or inclination to post on a blog like AppleInsider, MacRumors, 9to5 Mac, etc. The anonymity of the internet allows anyone to present themself as an expert on a topic. 

The reverse of the old cliche is the real truth. Almost NOTHING you read on the internet is true. Most of what you read on the internet is complete bullshit..

edited June 2021

hammeroftruth

lkrupp said:

dhawkins541 said:

tommikele said:

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

I appreciate your comment. So many people here and places like 9to5 comment about things they know nothing about, but wish to present themselves as experts or highly experienced attorneys with practices focused on the subject at hand. In reality, they are responding with emotional based fanboism and know nothing about the legal aspects of the topic. When you do have some direct experience and read this stuff you want to slap them (not literally) upside the head and let them know they may be fooling themselves, but not you.

In this case, Mr. Lizard is a pretty good example of it. He also spells patronizing with an "s" instead of a "z" indicating he is educated somewhere other than the US and probably a resident/citizen of the UK or Australia  or some other place where the Queen's grammar rules. That makes it highly unlikely he knows anything about the the US courts or the subject other than the articles his fanboism leads him to read. To sum it up, he probably doesn't know squat about this and his comment about the Judge reflects the ignorance and a lack of respect for the law and court system.

I think you hit the nail on the head for the modern internet. We now have all these so-called "internet experts" or everything is a conspiracy of "big government" that finding intelligent logical dialog becomes muddled with garbage and even banter derails into nonsense.

There are NO experts commenting on any tech blogs anywhere, especially Apple blogs that are dominated by fanboys, haters, shills, and paid trolls. Actual experts wouldn’t have the time or inclination to post on a blog like AppleInsider, MacRumors, 9to5 Mac, etc. The anonymity of the internet allows anyone to present themself as an expert on a topic. 

The reverse of the old cliche is the real truth. Almost NOTHING you read on the internet is true. Most of what you read on the internet is complete bullshit..

Only 4 types of posters porcupine?
Which one are you?

I think some people take these forums too
seriously. They are for people’s OPINIONS, and not for taking as gospel. If you want facts please do your own fucking research. 

In the manner of Apple requesting that the Judge contemplate the NAACP case, it doesn’t come off as patronizing if Apple asks the judge to consider it. Why? Because the judge in her ruling will answer specifically why she does or does not agree with comparing this case with the other. 

DISCLAIMER:  I am NOT a lawyer, but have participated in many lawsuits and this is my OPINION. 

Happy now Larry?

applezulu

lkrupp said:

dhawkins541 said:

tommikele said:

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

I appreciate your comment. So many people here and places like 9to5 comment about things they know nothing about, but wish to present themselves as experts or highly experienced attorneys with practices focused on the subject at hand. In reality, they are responding with emotional based fanboism and know nothing about the legal aspects of the topic. When you do have some direct experience and read this stuff you want to slap them (not literally) upside the head and let them know they may be fooling themselves, but not you.

In this case, Mr. Lizard is a pretty good example of it. He also spells patronizing with an "s" instead of a "z" indicating he is educated somewhere other than the US and probably a resident/citizen of the UK or Australia  or some other place where the Queen's grammar rules. That makes it highly unlikely he knows anything about the the US courts or the subject other than the articles his fanboism leads him to read. To sum it up, he probably doesn't know squat about this and his comment about the Judge reflects the ignorance and a lack of respect for the law and court system.

I think you hit the nail on the head for the modern internet. We now have all these so-called "internet experts" or everything is a conspiracy of "big government" that finding intelligent logical dialog becomes muddled with garbage and even banter derails into nonsense.

There are NO experts commenting on any tech blogs anywhere, especially Apple blogs that are dominated by fanboys, haters, shills, and paid trolls. Actual experts wouldn’t have the time or inclination to post on a blog like AppleInsider, MacRumors, 9to5 Mac, etc. The anonymity of the internet allows anyone to present themself as an expert on a topic. 

The reverse of the old cliche is the real truth. Almost NOTHING you read on the internet is true. Most of what you read on the internet is complete bullshit..

So that means if what you’ve stated here is true, then it’s then almost certainly untrue, but if it’s false then it’s true, but if it’s true then it’s false, and worse, what I’m writing about what you wrote is true then it’s almost surely killed a cat inside a box, unless it’s still alive. 

mike_galloway

AppleZulu said:

lkrupp said:

dhawkins541 said:

tommikele said:

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

I appreciate your comment. So many people here and places like 9to5 comment about things they know nothing about, but wish to present themselves as experts or highly experienced attorneys with practices focused on the subject at hand. In reality, they are responding with emotional based fanboism and know nothing about the legal aspects of the topic. When you do have some direct experience and read this stuff you want to slap them (not literally) upside the head and let them know they may be fooling themselves, but not you.

In this case, Mr. Lizard is a pretty good example of it. He also spells patronizing with an "s" instead of a "z" indicating he is educated somewhere other than the US and probably a resident/citizen of the UK or Australia  or some other place where the Queen's grammar rules. That makes it highly unlikely he knows anything about the the US courts or the subject other than the articles his fanboism leads him to read. To sum it up, he probably doesn't know squat about this and his comment about the Judge reflects the ignorance and a lack of respect for the law and court system.

I think you hit the nail on the head for the modern internet. We now have all these so-called "internet experts" or everything is a conspiracy of "big government" that finding intelligent logical dialog becomes muddled with garbage and even banter derails into nonsense.

There are NO experts commenting on any tech blogs anywhere, especially Apple blogs that are dominated by fanboys, haters, shills, and paid trolls. Actual experts wouldn’t have the time or inclination to post on a blog like AppleInsider, MacRumors, 9to5 Mac, etc. The anonymity of the internet allows anyone to present themself as an expert on a topic. 

The reverse of the old cliche is the real truth. Almost NOTHING you read on the internet is true. Most of what you read on the internet is complete bullshit..

So that means if what you’ve stated here is true, then it’s then almost certainly untrue, but if it’s false then it’s true, but if it’s true then it’s false, and worse, what I’m writing about what you wrote is true then it’s almost surely killed a cat inside a box, unless it’s still alive. 

Love it.

I really need my opinion heard - I may know little but I believe my voice is every bit as important as anyone else, even if they have much more experience - I am the voice of the little man/woman.

I will have my say, and I want responses otherwise my opinion goes unheard and I am unloved.

Reasoned opinion often doesn’t get the attention I desire, so here goes …….

Edit

Sorry wrong forum - I need councelling.com

Sorry AppleInsider

osmartormenajr

lkrupp said:

There are NO experts commenting on any tech blogs anywhere, especially Apple blogs that are dominated by fanboys, haters, shills, and paid trolls. Actual experts wouldn’t have the time or inclination to post on a blog like AppleInsider, MacRumors, 9to5 Mac, etc. The anonymity of the internet allows anyone to present themself as an expert on a topic. 

The reverse of the old cliche is the real truth. Almost NOTHING you read on the internet is true. Most of what you read on the internet is complete bullshit..

Said the guy with a ludicrous avatar and almost 10 thousand posts...

georgebmac

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

Lawyers are there to state their case and all that backs it up -- including legal precedent.

That's their job.   If the judge is insulted by that, she needs to find a new line of work.

georgebmac

"rule of reason analysis"?

Obama said the same -- just more clearly:   "Don't do stupid things"

In this case, because you can find a law somewhere that could be applied, does not mean that it should be applied.

It seems that more than any other time in my 71 years that things these days tend to get oversimplified into:  "If it could happen, then it did happen" or, "If a rule can be applied, then apply it".   Reasonableness and pragmatism -- and the big picture, the whole truth of the matter -- fall by the way side. 

edited June 2021

larryjw

AppleInsider made the mistake of entitling this article as Apple "telling" the judge .... 

In US courts, the lawyers prosecute the case, and are obligated to inform the judge of legal precedents, and to therefore give opposing counsel the ability to respond. Of course, the court, sua sponte, can cite law not brought up by counsel, but it's usually poor form. 

In the UK, the Courts are more active. 

phonephreak

Sounds to me like Apple is scared the ruling is going against them.   Time to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks 

georgebmac

phonephreak said:

Sounds to me like Apple is scared the ruling is going against them.   Time to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks 

Hardly, "the law" is based as much on legal precedent as it is on legislation.   Both need to be brought up to the judge and jury when applicable.