Epic Games claims Apple led court astray on competition, security & more

Posted:
in General Discussion
Epic Games has filed a new brief in its case against Apple, claiming that not only did Apple mislead the court, but the judge erred in her interpretation of the market.

Epic Games marketing
Epic Games marketing


The game company on Wednesday filed an appeal reply and cross-appeal response brief in the Epic Games v. Apple legal battle. In its argument, Epic Games alleges that the U.S. District Court "committed multiple legal errors in rejecting Epic's Sherman Act claims."

In its original lawsuit, Epic claimed that Apple violated the Sherman Act by denying it access to the App Store, which it claimed as an essential facility. The Sherman Act dictates free commerce and competition across the U.S.

Additionally, Epic Games claims that the court made a mistake in sustaining Apple's restrictions.

"The court found substantial anticompetitive effects but erroneously credited justifications that do not advance competition and ignored its own factual findings establishing less restrictive alternatives," the brief reads.

Epic also tries to counter an argument that its demands would weaken Apple's iOS security. It claims that Apple touts the security of the Mac, which does not have the same protections as iOS. However, during the trial, Apple made it clear that it finds the level of malware on macOS unacceptable.

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled mostly in Apple's favor back in September 2021 after a lengthy trial. She handed Apple a win on basically every point except the company's ban on steering, or allowing developers to communicate with customers about cheaper subscription options.

Apple has successfully obtained a stay on an injunction that would force it to allow steering within apps. Beyond that, both Apple and Epic Games have appealed the ruling.

In its own brief submitted to the court in March, Apple argued that Judge Gonzalez Roger's ruling should stand because Epic Games' original lawsuit was badly flawed and because the company failed to prove wrongdoing on Apple's part.

Epic's Response and Reply Brief by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd

(function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "https://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    geekmeegeekmee Posts: 560member
    ‘When the argument is lost, the slander begins…’
    mattinozwilliamlondonrob53Beatskillroymontrosemacslolliver12Strangersviclauyycbloggerblog
  • Reply 2 of 18
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,223member
    No Epic, Apple didn't lead the court astray. You did so after breaching contract and foisted a frivolous lawsuit upon Apple and the people. 

    You're exposed as idiots already, just pack up your little charade and go home. 


    williamlondonrob53Beatskillroymontrosemacs12StrangersviclauyycbloggerblogJapheyradarthekat
  • Reply 3 of 18
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,958member
    Didn't Epic rotted on the vine?!  One can only dream.
    williamlondonBeatskillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 18
    The Sherman Act requires unreasonable restraint of trade to apply. Epic did the vast majority of their trade per Fortnite on console and PC, then later ported the game to mobile to maximize revenue. Apple didn't prevent them from being on iOS. Fornite was on the App Store until Epic deliberately chose to violate store rules. Apple told them that Fortnite would be allowed back in the store if they agreed to follow the rules while the lawsuit was ongoing. Epic didn't take them up on the offer, lost the initial ruling, and now has returned Fornite to iOS via browser streaming (which requires no approval at all from Apple). 

    So that means their current legal maneuvers are purely for media/public consumption. They know they have no case, but Congress hasn't passed any legislation yet so they have to continue the play the victim.
    rob53killroymontrosemacs12Strangersviclauyycaderutterwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 18
    mac_dogmac_dog Posts: 974member
    Hmmm…sounds like a former co-worker who was obsessed with me (negative transference). If I ignored her (stayed as far away as possible) she would go out of her way to pick fights with me.

    This Epic situation sounds uncomfortably familiar. 
    killroyradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 18
    killroykillroy Posts: 208member
    Epic trying to blow smoke up the courts back end. Can the court just shut down the case because Epic is wasting the courts time.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 18
    Even if Epic complied with App Store policies, Apple would be foolish to allow them back on its platforms given the amount of damage they've attempted to inflict on Apple! Epic's miscreant CEO reminds me of other billionaires who demand rules bend to their wishes because……………they believe they're ENTITLED to it. Apple Tim, please tell Epic Tim to go pound sand.
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 18
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,937member
    If you are American, be glad you have an outstanding court system. Whenever you think about the US court system, you should watch the official Youtube video for Kool & The Gang called "Celebration."
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 18
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,075member
    This is like the horror movie where you think the monster has been finally slain but keeps coming back to life.
    Japheyviclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 18
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,996member
    But the Mac isn't anywhere near as secure as iOS, thanks to sideloading.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 18
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,561member
    The Sherman Act requires unreasonable restraint of trade to apply. Epic did the vast majority of their trade per Fortnite on console and PC, then later ported the game to mobile to maximize revenue. Apple didn't prevent them from being on iOS. Fornite was on the App Store until Epic deliberately chose to violate store rules. Apple told them that Fortnite would be allowed back in the store if they agreed to follow the rules while the lawsuit was ongoing. Epic didn't take them up on the offer, lost the initial ruling, and now has returned Fornite to iOS via browser streaming (which requires no approval at all from Apple). 

    So that means their current legal maneuvers are purely for media/public consumption. They know they have no case, but Congress hasn't passed any legislation yet so they have to continue the play the victim.
    "In its original lawsuit, Epic claimed that Apple violated the Sherman Act by denying it access to the App Store, which it claimed as an essential facility. The Sherman Act dictates free commerce and competition across the U.S"

    As worded in the article, you are 100% correct. But that was not Epic original claim in the lawsuit. What Epic was claiming was that the 30% commission they had to pay Apple on IAP, amounted to restraint of trade and an abuse of a "monopoly" Apple had with the App Store because it's the only way to install apps on iOS. Thus violation the Sherman Act. 

    What the Judge almost immediately threw out was the notion that the App Store was a "monopoly" on iOS. This because one can not (or it's nearly impossible to) have a "monopoly" that is covered under the Sherman Act, when the "relevant market" is narrowed down to just one brand. Otherwise, every company would have a "monopoly" when the "market" is narrowed down to just their brand. So without any proof (from Epic) that Apple App Store is a "monopoly" under the Sherman Act, Apple was not in violation of any anti-trust laws by charging a 30% commission. Even if the Judge questioned the "high" commission, she saw nothing illegal about it and said that the courts can not punish a company just for being successful. This is not the EU after all.

    The only questionable ruling by the Judge is that Apple App Store policy of not allowing developers to advertise other ways to pay for IAP, within their apps, was a violation of California Unfair Competition Law. CA UCL is a catch all law that allows the courts to charge a business for "unfair competition", if they only think the practice was "illegal"but  no other anti-trust laws applies.  There is absolutely no mention of any violations even resembling what Apple was doing (by not allowing developers to advertise other ways to pay for the IAP with in their app) cited in CA UCL. The Judge just felt like this practice was "illegal" and is covered under the UCL. And as pointed out by several law firms in their opinion of this ruling by the Federal Judge, it is highly improbable that an entity can be in violation of CA UCL and not been found guilty of violating any other or Federal anti-trust laws.  They cited many cases involving businesses being charged only under CA UCL, that were thrown out by the courts, because the business was not found guilty of violating any other or Federal anti-trust laws.  

    https://www.winston.com/en/legal-glossary/california-unfair-competition-law.html

    https://www.reedsmith.com/fr/perspectives/2001/02/for-plaintiffs-all-the-benefits-of-a-class-action

    Apple stands a very good chance of winning their appeal on this matter. 


    What I don't understand is .... didn't the lawyers representing Epic attend law school (in the US) and pass? Don't they have computers where they can "google" ... "Sherman Act", "monopoly", "relevant market", "completion " and the likes?  My only conclusion is that Epic's lawyers are going about their business under the notion that ..... "a fool and his money are soon parted". And Sweeney is one big rich fool that these lawyers are not going to release, after they had the fortune to catch him the first time. 

     
    edited May 26 bestkeptsecretradarthekataderutterthtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 18
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,937member
    davidw said:
    My only conclusion is that Epic's lawyers are going about their business under the notion that ..... "a fool and his money are soon parted". And Sweeney is one big rich fool that these lawyers are not going to release, after they had the fortune to catch him the first time. 
    Sweeney's lawyers sure aren't working for the standard 30% contingency fees. Their work is for cash only. (Also, your post was good.)
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 18
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 690member
    Got to love all the armchair lawyers! Your legal brilliance is funny though not enlightening. Really hope Apple loses this. Maybe then they can start focusing on actually delivering new products instead of trying to behave like Microsoft in the 90’s and aughts. What is actually being delivered that is revolutionary this year? Nothing! They can’t even deliver on what is evolutionary. With the supply chain issues you’d think they could focus on software while they waited but no, even that is too much to ask. So we will get iPhone 13+ 0.01 and call it iPhone 14. M1 + 0.01 and call it M2 etc. The history of massively large companies is that they fail slowly over time. GE, ATT, Sears, GM all titans in their day and now just run of the mill or out of business or surpassed by the next generation. Innovate or fade away. 
  • Reply 14 of 18
    davidw said: What I don't understand is .... didn't the lawyers representing Epic attend law school (in the US) and pass? Don't they have computers where they can "google" ... "Sherman Act", "monopoly", "relevant market", "completion " and the likes?  My only conclusion is that Epic's lawyers are going about their business under the notion that ..... "a fool and his money are soon parted". And Sweeney is one big rich fool that these lawyers are not going to release, after they had the fortune to catch him the first time. 
    IMO, the lawsuits were only window dressing for the lobbying of Congress/EU. All of these companies lose in court when it comes to antitrust claims.

    I've previously cited the BlueMail ruling in the U.S. which happened around the same time as the original Epic/Apple court case. BlueMail's antitrust lawsuit was dismissed with the judge citing BlueMail's own marketing which touted how successful they were on other platforms, i.e., how can they claim "unreasonable" restraint of trade when they obviously did a lot of trade with their app elsewhere. The same legal reasoning applies to Fortnite as well. They made the vast majority of their $$ on consoles/PCs. The app was not originally developed for mobile at all. 
    thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 18
    bulk001 said:
    Got to love all the armchair lawyers! Your legal brilliance is funny though not enlightening. 
    You don't have to be enlightened by the armchair lawyering. You can look at the actual court decisions with real lawyers/judges: Epic lost in court, BlueMail didn't even make it to court (lawsuit dismissed).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 18
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,681member
    davidw said: What I don't understand is .... didn't the lawyers representing Epic attend law school (in the US) and pass? Don't they have computers where they can "google" ... "Sherman Act", "monopoly", "relevant market", "completion " and the likes?  My only conclusion is that Epic's lawyers are going about their business under the notion that ..... "a fool and his money are soon parted". And Sweeney is one big rich fool that these lawyers are not going to release, after they had the fortune to catch him the first time. 
    IMO, the lawsuits were only window dressing for the lobbying of Congress/EU. All of these companies lose in court when it comes to antitrust claims.
    Yes, Sweeney knows he has no hope of winning in court, but he's willing to spend a bit of his lobbying funds on the lawyers as part of his campaign to get restrictive laws passed that will hobble Apple and Google while giving him control.
    foregoneconclusionkillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 18
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,299member
    cpsro said:
    But the Mac isn't anywhere near as secure as iOS, thanks to sideloading.
    Yes, and macOS also annoys you with constant password prompts. Imagine if every other thing you wanted to do in iOS prompted you for FaceID? I doubt Apple would just poke holes in iOS if it were made to sideload. It would be FaceID prompt city, and the user experience would nosedive. 
    bshankwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 18
    killroykillroy Posts: 208member
    macxpress said:
    cpsro said:
    But the Mac isn't anywhere near as secure as iOS, thanks to sideloading.
    Yes, and macOS also annoys you with constant password prompts. Imagine if every other thing you wanted to do in iOS prompted you for FaceID? I doubt Apple would just poke holes in iOS if it were made to sideload. It would be FaceID prompt city, and the user experience would nosedive. 

    You also don't run external equipment on iOS like Davinci resolve, Avid and raid systems. All the drivers are not Apples.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.