Department of Justice gets permission to argue Epic Games's side

Posted:
in General Discussion
The DOJ has been granted permission to present oral arguments in the Epic Games vs Apple appeal, and is expected to repeat prior claims that Apple's victory could harm antitrust enforcement.




Representatives from the Department of Justice have previously joined 34 States in siding with Epic Games in its dispute against Apple's App Store. Now with an appeal set for October 21, the DOJ asked permission to present oral arguments.

The Department filed a request to present for 10 minutes during the appeal and this has now been granted. The DOJ's lawyers said they wanted to explain to the court details of the proper legal framework for evaluating antitrust issues.

Back in 2018, the DOJ actually supported Apple over the App Store in an amicus brief. But in 2022, it was one of many parties filing amicus briefs against Apple.

The Department has argued that there were "multiple legal errors" in how the court interpreted the Sherman Act about antitrust issues. Its lawyers maintain that upholding Apple's victory could "imperil" future antitrust enforcement.

Such future enforcement could include the antitrust case that the DOJ is separately preparing against Apple.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    I find the Epic case to be problematic. If I were Apple I would go scorched earth because the alternative negates any platform innovation investment going forward. I would make it clear , we have spent 50 billion dollars building and maintaining our platform. It is primarily for our first party apps and services and are designed to make a profit for our shareholders. We are to make as much profit as possible just like any other company. We choose to offer an extreme amount of value to our customers with products that last  2 to 3 years beyond our competitors in many cases. We do not cans can justify continuing to support products of platforms that do not meet our profitability standards or we see potential to grow into them. 

    We chose to allow 3rd parties access to our platforms to partner with us and have access to all we have built and continue to build and support with minimal upfront expense. The App Store is our real estate in the same way that Disney World belongs to Disney and vendors they allow access can either agree to their terms or choose not to participate. There is nothing preventing Epic from selling their wares else where. Mac OS, Apple’s original platform and the foundation for iOS is not supported by Epic and others with AAA games. Should they be forced to do so and invest their profits,  because it’s better for consumer choice?
    iloveapplegearretrogustowatto_cobraFileMakerFellerAnilu_777lolliver
  • Reply 2 of 14
    Not a Justice department's place to start taking side for one company vs other ? 
    watto_cobracornchipFileMakerFellerlolliver
  • Reply 3 of 14
    Epic lost the original court case because they couldn't provide EVIDENCE that Apple had violated antitrust laws. They didn't lose due to "interpretation". 

    "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."  

    https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/09/10/epic-v-apple.pdf
    watto_cobraFileMakerFellerlolliver
  • Reply 4 of 14
    Department of Justice…..there you go again. 
    watto_cobralolliver
  • Reply 5 of 14
    By doing this,

    People need to know the Biden Justice department is essentially working on behalf of the Chinese communists as Epic is 49 percent owned by Tencent 

    I voted for Biden but this is truly shameful and disgusting 
    watto_cobracornchip
  • Reply 6 of 14
    Lobbying really does make the world turn. Both in the US and the EU we've seen these initiatives being spearheaded by companies that are neither suffering nor even "losing" to Apple in their business endeavours - it's the same story: developers whose only innovation is how they can better squeeze profit or make it harder for customers to unsubscribe. Further more in Australia they're seeing long settled topics such as how Apple Pay functions being dragged up again - despite no changes to the platform.

    In every corner it smells the same: the clear motivation is a money grab by large business at the expense of Apple's customers and smaller developers who won't be able to compete on the same footing once the larger players get their way.

    The most amusing part of all of this: it's being sold as competition, it's the opposite - the relief proposed reduces competition and favours Epic over all other interests. It also makes a joke of commerce law - enter an agreement willingly, then pester the government to force a favourable change in the terms.
    watto_cobraFileMakerFellerAnilu_777lolliver
  • Reply 7 of 14
    JinTechJinTech Posts: 1,067member
    wood1208 said:
    Not a Justice department's place to start taking side for one company vs other ? 
    Especially a company not based in America!
    watto_cobracornchipAnilu_777lolliver
  • Reply 8 of 14
    genovelle said:
    I find the Epic case to be problematic. If I were Apple I would go scorched earth because the alternative negates any platform innovation investment going forward. I would make it clear , we have spent 50 billion dollars building and maintaining our platform. It is primarily for our first party apps and services and are designed to make a profit for our shareholders. We are to make as much profit as possible just like any other company. We choose to offer an extreme amount of value to our customers with products that last  2 to 3 years beyond our competitors in many cases. We do not cans can justify continuing to support products of platforms that do not meet our profitability standards or we see potential to grow into them. 

    We chose to allow 3rd parties access to our platforms to partner with us and have access to all we have built and continue to build and support with minimal upfront expense. The App Store is our real estate in the same way that Disney World belongs to Disney and vendors they allow access can either agree to their terms or choose not to participate. There is nothing preventing Epic from selling their wares else where. Mac OS, Apple’s original platform and the foundation for iOS is not supported by Epic and others with AAA games. Should they be forced to do so and invest their profits,  because it’s better for consumer choice?
    That's a "scorched earth" approach? "Making things clear"? To me, a scorched earth approach would be to actively remove the third party app store from any jurisdiction that causes the third party app store (along with all the products and services that Apple provides to support it) to become unprofitable. It was still called a "smart phone" before the app store existed, and will remain so. Furthermore, the absence of a third party app store does not mean a first party app store would not exist. If Apple were to license or buy software from other people, like you or me, our software could still get onto phones without a third party app store. It would just be rebranded as Apple's software. This is how the business worked before third party app stores existed.

    Once developers around the world see that the iPhone is still a very popular brand of phone after the third party app store was removed by Apple in some region, they would eagerly capitulate and switch sides. Because their livelihoods are at stake. They don't want Apple to have complete control of iOS again.
    watto_cobracornchipFileMakerFeller
  • Reply 9 of 14
    wood1208 said:
    Not a Justice department's place to start taking side for one company vs other ? 
    I have just the same question, is this juridical correct?
  • Reply 10 of 14
    qwerty52 said:
    wood1208 said:
    Not a Justice department's place to start taking side for one company vs other ? 
    I have just the same question, is this juridical correct?
    Yes shouldn't they be going after Epic for systematic abuse of other peoples IP?
    Fortnights entire revenue stream comes from dance move, clothes and the lootbox kit all based on other peoples designs and trading off their work. 

    Yet they are unhappy Apple want to trade on their own contributions to 3rd party success on Apple own platforms. 
    edited September 2022 Anilu_777lolliver
  • Reply 11 of 14
    I've got no problem with any party, even a government agency, telling a court how they would like the law to be interpreted. Everyone wants to get the best possible outcome, and manipulating opinion is a successful tactic in a lot of situations.

    What I take issue with is the court being swayed by such arguments. The job of the judicial system is to apply the law as it is written. There's some small scope for interpretation, and following precedent is mostly beneficial, but the act of judgement is meant to be conducted without fear or favour - ignoring, to the extent humanly possible, the harms and benefits that accrue to the parties involved.

    If the law as written does not suit the needs of the society it applies to, follow the process for changing the law. There seems to be great appetite for changing laws around sentencing for minor crimes but much less for abstract large-scale problems like anti-trust. As we've seen with the recent challenge to Roe vs Wade, legal precedent does not (and should not) provide as much protection as legislation. If it's important enough, devote the effort into writing and passing effective legislation.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    Looks like the American legal and commercial system does not like it when American business is successful. If it is, tear it down! So much for capitalism and supporting US business. 
    earthkid
  • Reply 13 of 14
  • Reply 14 of 14
    Oh he got bored but he support you before but now he lost in public benefit so now he turn around and going to trash you so he playing if you don’t give me the benefit I will trash you I’ve got against you. Do you know what it is such a problem stay in America and move it the company out elsewhere. Can you own an island or something because I’m sick of America trashing local business. It’s one thing you have to compete with your inner in the business and it’s one thing when the government try to take you down. 
Sign In or Register to comment.