carnegie said: Epic still accuses Google of, e.g., violating the Sherman Act by illegally monopolizing the Android App Distribution Market and the Android In-App Payment Processing Market. Its accusations against Google are pretty similar to its accusations against Apple.
Violating the Sherman Act requires an unreasonable restraint of trade. How was Epic's trade unreasonably restrained? They sold Fortnite on consoles. They sold Fortnite on PCs. They sold Fortnite on iOS and Android. And after they intentionally got themselves kicked off of the App Store, they sent marketing messages to Fortnite users on iOS/Android to play the game on consoles/PC instead. IMO, that last part clearly shows there is no unreasonable restraint of trade. Epic itself considered it to be possible for iOS/Android users to simply switch to playing their app on a different platform. They knew they could sell the same product to the same users regardless.
Per the Reuters link provide by the article, the Justice Department isn't taking sides in the case but wants an opportunity to present its own view on the correct interpretation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
IMO, it doesn't really matter what the Justice Department says or doesn't say about the Sherman Antitrust Act since Apple has pointed out that Epic has never provided any evidence of harm to their business. Fortnite was ported to iOS/Android to make some extra $$ after it had already been a smash hit on consoles and PC. By any definition it was also very successful financially on mobile before Epic decided to intentionally break the rules of the iOS platform as a prelude to filing a lawsuit. As Apple has consistently stated, Fortnite represents a business dispute and not an antitrust issue. Another federal court already dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple by BlueMail by citing the financial success that BlueMail achieved on other platforms with the same app.
The Justice Department is, nominally, supporting neither side in this case. But the positions it takes in its amicus brief would help Epic more so than Apple. If the 9th Circuit panel agrees with the Justice Department's arguments, that would get Epic closer to making a case that Apple violated U.S. antitrust law.
The DOJ had a representative sit in, for every day of the Epic/Apple lawsuit trial. On appeal, Epic claim is that the court made multiple legal errors in interpreting the Sherman Act, when ruling that Epic had not prove that Apple is a monopoly. Did Epic lawyers come to that conclusion on their own? Or did they have help from the DOJ? And low and behold, what reason did the DOJ give for wanting to give an amicus brief in this appeal hearing ....
"The United States believes that its participation at oral argument would be helpful to the court, especially in explaining how the errors (in antitrust law interpretation) could significantly harm antitrust enforcement beyond the specific context of this case," the Justice Department wrote on Friday.
It seems obvious that the DOJ informed Epic of what they thought are "errors" in the courts decision that ruled Apple was not a monopoly and Epic appeal is based on what the DOJ told them. The DOJ amicus brief appears to be supporting Epic's appeal case and trying to "steer" the courts into not making the same "errors" when ruling on this on appeal. Hopefully, the courts realize that they did not make any "errors" in the original trial and will use their same interpretation of the Sherman Act in this appeal hearing, as they used in the trial.
This is the reasoning for not ruling Apple a monopolist:
"Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."
Essentially, the judge agreed with Apple that Epic lacked evidence of harm that would be related to antitrust conduct. All they really had was standard business grievances.
As others in this thread have stated, this is about the leader of the executive branch sending his DOJ to squash an American innovator as a favor to the Chinese, simply because he and his son have multiple business relationships with them.
You may have to wait until the end of Biden's term, but you will find no evidence that Biden is using the DOJ as his personal law firm, unlike T*****p (the Mafia Donnie) did on a continual basis, with Sessions, Rosenstein and Barr as Attorneys General. As far "quashing" an American innovator, you don't even know what the DOJ's specific interest is in this case, much less what action, if any, they would take after it reaches a judgement.
As far as the DOJ inserting itself into a civil case, it is allowable, and frequently used, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 24(a) and 24(b) et al, first established in 1936. These rules are promulgated by the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, after which the rule/s are submitted to Congress, which has the power to veto the rule/s. This is not some "revolutionary" action, as many of you have implied.
Is that a thing now – the government “participating” or intervening in civil cases between two private parties? Merrick Garland has crossed the line. Such an abuse of power. If you hate Apple, sue them yourselves.
Yes that has been a thing since long before you have been born since a judge’s ruling sets binding precedent and effects all other antitrust cases that come after it that the DOJ and other third parties will be involved with.
Name one other civil suit between two private entities that the executive branch has interfered with, and especially only late in the appeals process, which is not supposed to consider new evidence not introduced in the original trial. I am not talking about the judicial branch of government – that’s not what this story is about – obviously judges are involved in a civil suit.
As others in this thread have stated, this is about the leader of the executive branch sending his DOJ to squash an American innovator as a favor to the Chinese, simply because he and his son have multiple business relationships with them.
Let’s not forget, news of a DOJ readying antitrust action against Apple was leaked about a week ago. They are injecting themselves last minute into an *appeal* on an existing case to fast track their own ambitions with regard to Apple, as any decision will have one less appeal available, than if they started from scratch with their own suit against Apple.
Tin-Foil? This a fight among 1%’s on how to divide up the pot of gold. Spotify is fighting the same fight in the EU.
Comments
"The United States believes that its participation at oral argument would be helpful to the court, especially in explaining how the errors (in antitrust law interpretation) could significantly harm antitrust enforcement beyond the specific context of this case," the Justice Department wrote on Friday.
It seems obvious that the DOJ informed Epic of what they thought are "errors" in the courts decision that ruled Apple was not a monopoly and Epic appeal is based on what the DOJ told them. The DOJ amicus brief appears to be supporting Epic's appeal case and trying to "steer" the courts into not making the same "errors" when ruling on this on appeal. Hopefully, the courts realize that they did not make any "errors" in the original trial and will use their same interpretation of the Sherman Act in this appeal hearing, as they used in the trial.
"Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple’s conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.812.0_3.pdf
Essentially, the judge agreed with Apple that Epic lacked evidence of harm that would be related to antitrust conduct. All they really had was standard business grievances.
As far as the DOJ inserting itself into a civil case, it is allowable, and frequently used, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 24(a) and 24(b) et al, first established in 1936. These rules are promulgated by the Supreme Court, pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, after which the rule/s are submitted to Congress, which has the power to veto the rule/s. This is not some "revolutionary" action, as many of you have implied.
Tin-Foil? This a fight among 1%’s on how to divide up the pot of gold. Spotify is fighting the same fight in the EU.