After spending days confronting economic analysis and presenting evidence, both sides arrived on Monday to discuss how Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers should interpret Apple’s role in the vast digital economy. The results of that analysis could rebuild the mechanics of the digital app store and maintain Apple’s key position in the app ecosystem.
In the coming weeks, Gonzales Rogers will either be an agile innovator that has paid off by building a popular app business, or, as Epic claims, will take control of the iOS App Store. It illegally harms competition, limits innovation, and keeps prices high.
On Monday, Epic asked Gonzales Rogers to ban some of Apple’s policies and force Apple to allow third-party app stores to compete with their proprietary app stores. Epic also accused Apple of trying to convince judges that it was the “merciful ruler” of the iOS ecosystem. “Because it’s working so far,” it should be allowed to continue operating without competition.
“It’s not an antitrust defense,” Epic’s lawyer said. (When Gonzales Rogers pointed out that Apple was anti-competitive and at the same time couldn’t be “good faith,” Epic’s lawyers disagreed, and Apple was “pretending to be a good-will ruler.” It just needs to be truly tested against competitors. “
In contrast, Apple urged Gonzalez Rogers to consider its App Store as part of a vibrant and competitive market for video game sales. A prominent executive march that culminated in Cook on Friday claimed that Apple’s platform rules protect users, provide security and privacy.And on Monday, what the lawyer did to Epic I hope it will be unjust and unprecedented.
Gonzales Rogers asked both sides important questions.She disputed Apple’s fee structure, noting that “if there is real competition, that number will work, but it won’t.” Apple later created discounts for small businesses. Claimed to have reduced fees several times, including
At some point, the judge was willing to discover that Apple broke the law and hypothetically thought about the restrictions she could impose on Apple under California law, or Apple. It hinted that it would consider an analysis that would allow it to be recognized as anti-competitive behavior without making a decision.
She also strongly opposed Epic on Monday, suggesting that the company wants her to “change the business model.” She told Epic lawyer Gary Bournestein that I He sought to cite examples of cases that resulted in this type of case, including a lawsuit. Attorneys sought to cite the groundbreaking 1990s Microsoft anti-trust proceedings, the U.S. government’s recent proceedings against Qualcomm, and pending cases. We briefly discussed the Supreme Court proceedings and eventually dismissed them as a proper comparison.
“There has never been an antitrust case in which the kind of relief you were requesting was granted by the court when a private plaintiff came in,” she said. “The court did not. It’s a pretty important measure. ” (Bornstein admitted that he did not have a perfect similarity. It shows that the judges are facing a “quite special situation”. )
By expressing reservations about precedent, Gonzales Rogers opened the door to Apple’s argument that succumbing to Epic’s demands meant a significant break from history.
“If that’s scary for Apple’s iOS customers … and for this court, it’s just the result of what Epic wants,” said Apple lawyer Richard Doren, in contrast. Epic claimed that Apple was trying to “frighten the court.”
However, Gonzales Rogers can also appear to enjoy her role at the forefront of law.
“They don’t call us meaninglessly the Western Pioneer,” she joked.
Apple and Epic Games make closing arguments over “Fortnite”
Source link Apple and Epic Games make closing arguments over “Fortnite”