Apple App Store Policies Upheld by Court in Antitrust Challenge Brought by Epic Games (bloomberg.com) 17
Apple won an appeals court ruling upholding its App Store's policies in an antitrust challenge brought by Epic Games. From a report: Monday's ruling by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower-court judge's 2021 decision largely rejecting claims by Epic, the maker of Fortnite, that Apple's online marketplace policies violated federal law because they ban third-party app marketplaces on its operating system. The appeals panel upheld the judge's ruling in Epic's favor on California state law claims. The ruling comes as Apple has been making changes to the way the App Store operates to address developer concerns since Epic sued the company in 2020. The dispute began after Apple expelled the Fortnite game from the App Store because Epic created a workaround to paying a 30% fee on customers' in-app purchases. "There is a lively and important debate about the role played in our economy and democracy by online transaction platforms with market power," the three-judge panel said. "Our job as a federal court of appeals, however, is not to resolve that debate -- nor could we even attempt to do so. Instead, in this decision, we faithfully applied existing precedent to the facts."
but in an EU court they may win so will apple spil (Score:2)
but in an EU court they may win so will apple split the OS in US + others and EU builds?
Re:but in an EU court they may win so will apple s (Score:4, Informative)
Epic doesn't need to 'win this' in the EU, the EU has a law that has Apple making changes for EU market:
https://www.macrumors.com/2023... [macrumors.com]
Re: (Score:3)
This suggests this has played out:
https://www.macrumors.com/2023... [macrumors.com]
iOS in EU will allow sideloading, it will not in other markets.
Re: (Score:3)
As per rumor sites, this is supposedly done already. Similar to how Canada gets an iPhone with one SIM slot, China gets one with two, and the US has none.
Bad Example (Score:1)
Epic is just one of the best at sucking the life blood out of gamers.
Being in business with Apple (developer, supplier) is this side of being going in to Wal Mart buyers. People still see it as a huge windfall to get a lock in with them, but it's just having a "not going out of business, deep-pocket vendor/supplier".
There's no secret that Apple is a test on the robustness of your business/contract skills and your patents . . . but the only reason they get the most attention is that they don't have a differ
Re: (Score:2)
> Epic is just one of the best at sucking the life blood out of gamers.
Based on what evidence? Popularity of Fortnite? The games industry goes in fads. PUBG made Battle Royale popular so Epic made their own Battle Royale after Fornite: Save the World (Pve) and Paragon [wikipedia.org] failed to gain traction. If consumers are dumb enough to buy MTX that is on gamers and not Epic because the whole industry is greedy as fuck (of course there are exceptions.)
Show me an AAA engine that comes with source AND that is free.
Re: (Score:2)
> Epic is just one of the best at sucking the life blood out of gamers.
Based on what evidence? Popularity of Fortnite? The games industry goes in fads. PUBG made Battle Royale popular so Epic made their own Battle Royale after Fornite: Save the World (Pve) and Paragon [wikipedia.org] failed to gain traction. If consumers are dumb enough to buy MTX that is on gamers and not Epic because the whole industry is greedy as fuck (of course there are exceptions.)
Show me an AAA engine that comes with source AND that is free. Lumberyard? Epic has done more to empower game devs then any other company I know. Blaming gamers because ONE company accepts MTX is myopic IMHO.
Hmmmm you sound an awful lot like an emacs guy . . .
time to get out the popcorn (Score:2)
Let me know if you disagree with this, but this appears to me to be:
- Epic read the TOS, didn't like it, but thought some of the points it didn't like were legally unenforceable, so it agreed to the terms anyway
- Epic them broke the TOS in a big (both technically, and monetarily) way
- Apple told Epic to stop
- Epic told Apple where to shove their TOS
- Apple kicked Epic off the store for TOS violations
- Epic sued Apple
I'm not entirely sure what Epic is looking for though. Do they just want monetary damages?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know if you disagree with this, but this appears to me to be:
- Epic read the TOS, didn't like it, but thought some of the points it didn't like were legally unenforceable, so it agreed to the terms anyway
- Epic them broke the TOS in a big (both technically, and monetarily) way
- Apple told Epic to stop
- Epic told Apple where to shove their TOS
- Apple kicked Epic off the store for TOS violations
- Epic sued Apple
I'm not entirely sure what Epic is looking for though. Do they just want monetary damages? Do they want back into Apple's app store? Or is a big part of it just about proving a point, or establishing case law? I think everyone agrees that they broke their TOS, the question really is can Apple make (and enforce) those demands in its TOS? (those are two very different points - I can put a sign iat my towing company stating "not responsible for damage or theft from towed vehicles", but it has no actual legal effect and doesn't diminish a towee's rights, they can effectively ignore the sign)
Well, so far, two layers of the Judiciary have found that Apple can enforce their TOS.
So, if Epic's goal is to establish legal precedent, these aren't likely the precedents they wanted!
Re: (Score:2)
> thought some of the points it didn't like were legally unenforceable
If the terms are themselves illegal then they're void in the contract.
Epic is testing that. In Europe Apple is being forced to allow sideloading so perhaps it's moot there.
Imagine Europeans and Koreans have Marketplaces but Americans don't when it gets to the Supreme Court. Polutics is always a factor. Epic better be moving fast if they want a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
ANY lawyer drafting up a contract (TOS) will add somewhere "if any part of this contact is found to be invalid, that part doesn't apply anymore, but the rest of the contract remains in effect"
If they didn't do that, they're incompetent. And I don't think it's a good bet to say that Apple retains incompetent lawyers.
Music artist (Score:1)