![]() ![]() Epic’s best path to legal victory may be the assertion that rival platforms - in particular, Android phones - are not reasonably interchangeable with iOS because of the “walled garden” constructed by Apple, according to Ari Lightman, professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College.Ĭonversely, Apple insists there are plenty of options for developers within its store - there are 1.8 million apps across 27 categories - and plenty of market competition, in the form of online stores from Google, Microsoft Corp. The ruling could hinge on the relevant market: Epic argued that the relevant market at the core of this case should be defined narrowly as iOS apps. I think she would be more likely to allow steering to other ways of paying,” Williams said. “Courts don’t usually like to regulate prices. “I am not sure how that will translate into her final order.” “ questions showed that she is uncomfortable with the lack of competition that Epic was able to introduce at the trial in terms of pricing and responsiveness to developer concerns,” antitrust lawyer Valarie Williams told MarketWatch. Prescriptive measures that could address the 30% commission fees or seek alternatives to Apple’s payment system are more likely than a full ruling against Apple, experts said. “I tend to think that the judge may support Apple’s ability to manage their App Store, but find for Epic on forced use of ApplePay,” Ted Claypoole, an intellectual property lawyer told MarketWatch. Apple does not allow app makers to guide consumers to other ways to pay that would allow them to avoid the App Store’s payments system and commission fee, as Epic attempted to do before Apple kicked its popular game “Fortnite” out of the App Store. If anything, he said, Epic’s website and app store offered evidence of ways to “circumvent” Apple’s In-App Purchase system, which is at the core of Epic’s lawsuit. “And she, like other judges, does not want her decision to be overruled.”įor more: What each side was able to prove in the Epic vs. ![]() “The judge will rule in Apple’s favor because the law is clearly on Apple’s side,” said Carl Szabo, vice president of tech lobbying group NetChoice, whose members include Google parent Alphabet Inc. How she defines the relevant market in the historic case could lead to remedies that push narrow, nuanced prescriptive measures, but none of the experts that MarketWatch spoke with expected that she would outright rule Apple is exerting illegal control over a monopoly. Throughout closing arguments on Monday, the judge signaled she was troubled by monopolistic forces at work in the iOS ecosystem, but acknowledged that federal courts don’t run businesses. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |