Apple tells Epic judge to consider Supreme Court NCAA decision
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.
![](https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/42844-83267-41350-80232-nineteen-eighty-fortnite-xl-xl.jpg)
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.
"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.
![](https://photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/42844-83267-41350-80232-nineteen-eighty-fortnite-xl-xl.jpg)
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)
"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.
Comments
If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.
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.
“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?
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..
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.
Happy now Larry?
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
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.