Epic Pushes To Overturn App Store Ruling In Opening Appeal Brief

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Epic Games has filed its opening brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn the previous ruling that Apple's control over the iOS App Store does not qualify as a monopoly. The company first gave notice of it appeal in September, but Thursday's filing is the first time it has laid out its argument at length. "Epic proved at trial that Apple retrains trade...by contractually requiring developers to exclusively use Apple's App Store to distribute apps and Apple's IAP for payments for digital content within apps," the filing reads. "If not overturned, [the district court] decision would upend established principles of antitrust law and...undermine sound antitrust policy."

Epic's first legal challenge to Apple's App Store restrictions came to a finish in September, when a district court ordered Apple to roll back some restrictions on in-app payments, but otherwise cleared the company of antitrust charges. A separate appeal from Apple has been filed to reverse the new in-app payment rules.

In her ruling, Judge Gonzales Rogers was particularly ambiguous on the question of whether Apple held monopoly power over the mobile gaming market. "The evidence does suggest that Apple is near the precipice of substantial market power, or monopoly power, with its considerable market share," she wrote in the decision. "Apple is only saved by the fact that its share is not higher, that competitors from related submarkets are making inroads into the mobile gaming submarket, and, perhaps, because [Epic] did not focus on this topic." In the appeals brief, Epic seems determined to revisit that question, and draw a clearer link between the iPhone's success as a mobile gaming platform and a potential monopoly case against Apple. "The district court's factual findings make clear," the filing alleges, "that Apple's conduct is precisely what the antitrust laws prohibit." In response to the filing, Apple issued the following statement: "In its ruling last year, the district court confirmed that Apple is not a monopolist in any relevant market and that its agreements with app developers are legal under antitrust laws. We are confident that the rulings challenged by Epic will be affirmed on appeal."

Never going to happen . . .

[indytx]

What Epic really wants is to be able to force Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to allow Epic to put its own app store on their consoles. For Apple to be a "monopoly," the law would have to be changed to say that Apple is monopoly over its own walled garden when the market share of Apple phones does not otherwise constitute a monopoly. This is a Pandora's box that will never be opened. I'm no longer and Apple user, but it is not a monopoly.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

What Epic really wants is to be able to force Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to allow Epic to put its own app store on their consoles.

Or alternatively, Epic can follow their own rules on MS, Sony, and Nintendo stores while Epic can enforce their own rules on their store on other game developers. It is a win-win only for Epic.

Re:Never going to happen . . .

[drinkypoo]

For Apple to be a "monopoly," the law would have to be changed to say that Apple is monopoly over its own walled garden

That doesn't require any changes to law, just changes in interpretation thereof. Apple has willfully created a market over which they exercise undue control.

It's not actually illegal to create a market over which you have a monopoly, it's only illegal to behave in certain ways once you have done so, and Apple is behaving in some of those ways.

Re:

[iamnotx0r]

Does apple own the smart phone *monopoly*? The app store is not a monopoly.

Re:

[iamnotx0r]

lolz, a personal attack. Why not deal with the subject and not about some individual's statement.

Re:

[OrangeTide]

he probably got sick of dealing with "devil's advocate" types that would rather disingenuously debate for fake internet points than to cut to any purpose, meaning, or truth.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Why not deal with the subject and not about some individual's statement.

I dealt with both. I think individuals matter, and subjects also matter.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

The only market apple actually has undue control is over their app store.

Thanks for admitting that apple has undue control over that market, even though you don't know what the word "undue" means given the rest of your argument.

Conservatives should support EPIC

[UpnAtom]

Anyone abusing their market position is bad for capitalism.

And a duopoly isn't much better than a monopoly. If Facebook is abusing its monopolistic power, so is Apple.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

But Epic's argument would mean that Epic gets to decide what rules they want to follow in another company's store while at the same time Epic gets to decide what others do in their Epic store. How is that good capitalism?

Re:

[iamnotx0r]

... "Epic gets to decide what rules they want to follow in another company's store while at the same time Epic gets to decide what others do in their Epic store. How is that good capitalism?"

Technically that(Epics desire) is capitalism. The argument is if the app store is a monopoly(or substantially unfair business practice), so that Epic can get their way.

Capitalism is ...
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather tha

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Again Epic's logic, they can come into my store and dictate terms but I cannot dictate terms in their store. How is that capitalism? How is that not just simple hypocrisy?

Re:

[iamnotx0r]

You are equating capitalism with fairness. Capitalism is not fair. Fairness is socialism(in a loose sense)

We nave lawyers to argue what is legal and fair. The app store has rules, and many dislike those rules. Some cause they hate Apple.
Epic is working, or attempting the monopoly angle to get their way.

I am sure something will happen, just not all that Epic wants.

Legally, you aim high and get less. Sometimes you get it all, bit not often.