In Appeal, Apple Argues Epic 'Failed To Prove' Facts of Fortnite Lawsuit (cnet.com) 12
Apple argued in court papers this week that appeals filings by Epic Games don't point to legal errors by a US District Court judge who ruled last year that the iPhone maker hadn't violated antitrust laws with its App Store. Instead, Apple cited the many times the judge said Epic had "failed to demonstrate," "failed to show" and "failed to prove" the facts of its case. From a report: "On the facts and the law, the court correctly decided every issue presented in Epic's appeal," Apple lawyers wrote in the company's filing. They repeated earlier arguments that Epic is attempting to fundamentally change the App Store. "While these appeals are both important and complex, resolving the issues should not be difficult: Applying settled precedent to the adjudicated facts requires ruling for Apple across the board." Apple's 135-page filing is the latest in the legal battle it's been fighting with Epic since August 2020. On the surface, the two companies are battling over who gets how much when consumers spend money on the App Store. Apple is fighting to maintain control of its App Store, which has become such a key feature of its iPhones that the company's ads saying "there's an app for that" are referenced in crossword puzzles and on the trivia TV show Jeopardy.
Over the past couple of years, though, Apple's runaway success with its App Store has been challenged. Epic, which makes the hit online battle game Fortnite, argued that Apple should loosen its control. In emails, court filings and public statements, Epic has said Apple should allow alternative app stores onto the iPhone and iPad, something it currently doesn't allow. Epic also says Apple should free developers to use alternative payment processors in their apps, rather than Apple's current rule requiring they use only its App Store, through which Apple takes a cut of in-app purchases on its devices.
Over the past couple of years, though, Apple's runaway success with its App Store has been challenged. Epic, which makes the hit online battle game Fortnite, argued that Apple should loosen its control. In emails, court filings and public statements, Epic has said Apple should allow alternative app stores onto the iPhone and iPad, something it currently doesn't allow. Epic also says Apple should free developers to use alternative payment processors in their apps, rather than Apple's current rule requiring they use only its App Store, through which Apple takes a cut of in-app purchases on its devices.
"failed to demonstrate" - isn't that boilerplate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The onus is on the plaintiff to prove their case. Epic "failed to demonstrate" that their claims were correct in the legal context with which they were presented.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, this is Apple's answer to Epic's appeal of the suit. The judge already agreed with Apple on these points which Apple is pointing out. Generally the appeals court does not retry the case. Rather they have to decide if there was something wrong with how the case was handled. Did the judge correctly apply the correct case law? Did the judge dismiss evidence that should have been allowed? Did the judge commit ethical violations? Even if the appeals court agrees, the cases is generally overturned and
Re: (Score:2)
If Epic is arguing the facts again to the appeals court, then that is not likely to go anywhere.
IOW, either Epic's lawyers are truly dense (unlikely); or, they know it is literally a lost cause, and are simply rackin' up those sweet, sweet Billable Hours (almost assuredly the case).
Personally, I hope the attorneys (why isn't that spelled "attornies"?) suck the life out of Epic, with Meritless Appeal after Meritless Appeal. Epic has already demonstrated they are arrogant enough to fall for that Stupid Lawyer Trick!
Go, Exorbitant Legal Fees! Keep spending those in-App Purchase Profits; you can do it!
I j
apple may be fucked and to late for better rules (Score:1)
apple may be fucked and it may be to late for better rules in there app store.
Now maybe if apple make big changes to there app store they maybe able to get out of forced side loading.
Like
Limited to no content censorship
NOT forced to use webkit
APPS can tell people about apples fees and give links to web pages for other ways to pay.
Harder lines about what they take an cut on and what they don't Like is uber not paying 30% but dating apps are?
Re: apple may be fucked and to late for better rul (Score:1)
Our users want us to tell them what they can and can't do. We need to keep the app store de-nazified.
Signed,
Vladimir Cook
Apple CEO
Re: (Score:2)
NOT forced to use webkit
This one is tricky. The reason Apple requires everyone to use WebKit is because getting usable JavaScript performance requires compiling JavaScript down to native code, which means being able to execute code pages that are not backed by a signed executable on disk, and thus cannot be verified from a security perspective.
Yes, I absolutely agree that it is critical for Apple to do this, but that would require fairly large changes to iOS, starting with exposing a way to run arbitrary, unsigned code in a stric
Re: (Score:2)
iOS browsers running close to half a decade behind Chrome in terms of feature support,
You mean "A year behind Chrome's Private Extensions to standard HTML5", don't you?
Chrome is quickly becoming the new IE6: There's HTML5; and there's Chrome-ified HTML5.
Re: (Score:2)
iOS browsers running close to half a decade behind Chrome in terms of feature support,
You mean "A year behind Chrome's Private Extensions to standard HTML5", don't you?
Chrome is quickly becoming the new IE6: There's HTML5; and there's Chrome-ified HTML5.
No, I really don't. There are (at least as of a few months ago) a decent number of features that are supported by Firefox and Chrome, but not Safari, and a lot of the features that Safari does "support" are supported only halfway, with showstopper bugs that make it impractical to use them.
Of course, if you want to really cry over the state of the web, try enabling ::before and ::after pseudo-elements on every document node and turn on contentEditable. Every browser fails this test badly, even though that
Re: (Score:2)
iOS browsers running close to half a decade behind Chrome in terms of feature support,
You mean "A year behind Chrome's Private Extensions to standard HTML5", don't you?
Chrome is quickly becoming the new IE6: There's HTML5; and there's Chrome-ified HTML5.
It
No, I really don't. There are (at least as of a few months ago) a decent number of features that are supported by Firefox and Chrome, but not Safari, and a lot of the features that Safari does "support" are supported only halfway, with showstopper bugs that make it impractical to use them.
Of course, if you want to really cry over the state of the web, try enabling ::before and ::after pseudo-elements on every document node and turn on contentEditable. Every browser fails this test badly, even though that feature has been "supported" since 2007. Example. [gatwood.net]
But are those features actually part of HTML5; or is Firefox so desperate at this point for any semblance of measurable marketshare, that they are rushing to mimic every single Blinkin' Chrome feature there is?
Not that I am any sort of MS fan; but even Edge gave up having its own Renderer, and became little more than a skin for Chrome. Is that what Safari has to do, too?
It's fast becoming like the browser equivalent of the Demolition Man Universe: Now all restaurants are Taco Bell!
Which is truly funny; sinc
Re: (Score:2)
apple may be fucked and it may be to late for better rules in there app store.
How? Apple is pointing out to the appeals court that the lower court has already decided and noted that Epic has failed to prove their case. Appeals courts normally do not retry the case and deal with whether the lower court erred in how it handled the case, not the outcome of the case.
Now maybe if apple make big changes to there app store they maybe able to get out of forced side loading,
Again how? The only thing that the lower ruled for Epic was that Apple must allow 3rd party payments of some sort. The lower court found for Apple on all other claims.