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