Supreme Court Rejects Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle (reuters.com) 52
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a challenge by Apple to a lower court's decision requiring changes to certain rules in its lucrative App Store, as the justices shunned the lengthy legal battle between the iPhone maker and Epic Games, maker of the popular video game "Fortnite." Reuters: The justices also turned away Epic's appeal of the lower court's ruling that Apple's App Store policies limiting how software is distributed and paid for do not violate federal antitrust laws. The justices gave no reasons for their decision to deny the appeals. In a series of posts on X, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney wrote: The Supreme Court denied both sides' appeals of the Epic v. Apple antitrust case. The court battle to open iOS to competing stores and payments is lost in the United States. A sad outcome for all developers. Now the District Court's injunction against Apple's anti-steering rule is in effect, and developers can include in their apps "buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP."
As of today, developers can begin exercising their court-established right to tell US customers about better prices on the web. These awful Apple-mandated confusion screens are over and done forever. The fight goes on. Regulators are taking action and policymakers around the world are passing new laws to end Apple's illegal and anticompetitive app store practices. The European Union's Digital Markets Act goes into effect March 7.
As of today, developers can begin exercising their court-established right to tell US customers about better prices on the web. These awful Apple-mandated confusion screens are over and done forever. The fight goes on. Regulators are taking action and policymakers around the world are passing new laws to end Apple's illegal and anticompetitive app store practices. The European Union's Digital Markets Act goes into effect March 7.
and when apple bans apps that do this? (Score:2)
and when apple bans apps that do this?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is easier than that. They can require that any link be directly to the developer's website where it is processed, and that the developer be PCI-compliant. They can also ban "free" apps with external payment mechanisms. There are all kinds of games they can play to make it impractical to run alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Over the years, Apple has earned my trust, and I use their platform with pleasure, and pay for it. I store passwords i
Re: (Score:1)
To expect the SCOTUS to step in and enact your views into laws, regardless of whomever else's you might steam-roll over; is wrong.
My kingdom for mod points. Alas... none today.
Market definition is the critical decision (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but it seems to me SCOTUS has implicitly accepted the Appeals Court ruling accepting the trial court’s definition of the market. Now a judge’s ruling here could be considered as a matter of law (vs of fact, which is jury business.) So at a minimum, this could set up a basis for Google to appeal the ruling in its case, and if Google loses, that could then set up a potential for further SCOTUS ruling on ‘legal definition of a market.’
The ‘market definition’ is at the absolute core of these anti-trust cases. So if I were doing Apple’s legal strategy (or other big tech firm), I’d be looking for both certainty and favorable rulings-of-law on -my- preferred market definition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Google's market definition was set by the jury in trial court. Apple's was set by the judge and affirmed by the appeals court and implicitly by SCOTUS. So it's not clear to me how strong the Apple precedent is.
I was surprised the judge assigned the market definition to the jury in the Google case. I thought that would have been a 'ruling of law'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Market definition is the critical decision (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Suprme Court denials are not affirmations of lower court rulings and don't set precedent. The supreme court only hears so many cases, and sometimes things get denied not because they are correct but because they don't have enough care.
While it's true that they don't set precedent, they do allow the precedent set by the lower court to stand. Should different precedents emerge from different districts, it may then be worth the Supreme Court's time to weigh in, but until they do the existing precedent stands in that district and could become the basis for similar rulings in other districts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but it seems to me SCOTUS has implicitly accepted the Appeals Court ruling accepting the trial court's definition of the market.
They probably see nothing wrong with the current duopoly situation. If you don't like Apple's way of doing things, you can always use Google's product instead. If you don't like the way Google does things, you can always use Apple instead. And round and round we go.
Re: (Score:3)
Supreme Court says ... (Score:2)
You kids don't make me stop this car and come back there!
Re: (Score:2)
More like, "dad already told you that you are going to church! Nice try with the appeal to a higher authority though..."
First time (Score:2)
Re:First time (Score:4, Informative)
Gets referred to as a lower court all the time. Any court that's not the Supreme Court is a "lower court". This just happens to only be one step lower, vs two steps down to the district court level.
Re: (Score:1)
That is always the case with Supreme court rulings,
Better prices for whom? (Score:2)
I think this means "better prices for developers", not for end customers. I'm guessing this means that an app that used to be $9.99 on the app store is now going to be $9.99 on the web and $14.99 on the app store.
If an app that used to be $9.99 on the app store stays $9.99 on the app store and goes to say $7.99 on the web, I'll be astonished.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but can't Apple Inc., just put text in their developer agreement that forbids the developer from offering their app elsewhere for a different price? (Not that they can't offer it elsewhere, just that they can't for a different price.)
That smells of anti trust.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but can't Apple Inc., just put text in their developer agreement that forbids the developer from offering their app elsewhere for a different price? (Not that they can't offer it elsewhere, just that they can't for a different price.)
That smells of anti trust.
Some OEMs of High-End stereo equipment, like Crown, used to dictate to Dealers that their stuff had to be sold for MSRP. Never prosecuted as Price Fixing.
What makes this different?
Re: (Score:3)
IANAL, but can't Apple Inc., just put text in their developer agreement that forbids the developer from offering their app elsewhere for a different price? (Not that they can't offer it elsewhere, just that they can't for a different price.)
That'd be a "Most Favored Nation" (MFN) clause. And sure, they could, but they'd likely get in trouble with the courts because the App Store operates on an "agency model" (i.e. the producer of goods sets their own prices from which the storefront takes a cut). If that sounds familiar, it's because the Apple Books eBook store was found to be an anti-competitive form of collusion roughly a decade ago, due to its combination of an MFN clause with an agency model (which more or less allowed publishers to raise
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Better prices for whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Barely better prices for in-app purchases - maybe by fractions of a percent.
You still have to by the app itself on the app store - so that's not changing.
In app purchases can be redirected somewhere else - but - if you think Epic is going to massively lower pricing for them (aka lower them the same amount as the Apple fee) guess again. The think they charge $9.99 for now in app will be sold though the other payment processor for maybe $9.89 - with epic making a bigger profit for themselves and you getting barely anything.
But Sweeney Tim will be able to by a slightly bigger boat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
I could totally see a developer only charge, say, 20% less than what Apple charges. It would be an instant 10% increase to the developer compared to what they used to make from Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the original ruling only said Apple had to allow outside payment systems not outside stores. So the developer is not charging more or less on the App Store. However the developer could be getting less as other payment systems could charge more than Apple to handle the transaction.
Yes. That was the only one of ten Claims that Epic made that they Won. Apple Won the other Nine. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for commission, they are reducing it by 3% to cover payment processing fees. According to the court, they are s
Sup Easy Fix (Score:2)
Don't buy apps.
If you're a developerdeveloper, don't sell on Apple.
Yay (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to invest in someone to see the problems that could cause declaring that a platform someone built themselves is forced to be opened up. Such as ruling could have drastic implications about ownership of your own developed IP, to say nothing of creating an arbitrary point where suddenly because you get popular you need to give others unfretted access to what you have built up.
Apple didn't get a handout here. They didn't get their appeal for a ruling which went against them either. The lower cou
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to invest in someone to see the problems that could cause declaring that a platform someone built themselves is forced to be opened up. Such as ruling could have drastic implications about ownership of your own developed IP, to say nothing of creating an arbitrary point where suddenly because you get popular you need to give others unfretted access to what you have built up.
Apple didn't get a handout here. They didn't get their appeal for a ruling which went against them either. The lower courts did not get this one wrong.
This.
Exactly. Completely. Totally. This.
Everyone who Develops Anything should absolutely fear a world where the Inventor is forced by the Government to "Open it Up", simply because it becomes Popular Enough and someone Wants To Change The Rules; especially after they signed an Agreement Accepting thoseTerms and Conditions.
The fight isn't over... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of Rogers' decision in 2023, finding that Epic had "failed to prove the existence of substantially less restrictive alternatives" to Apple's system."
So Epic just failed to prove their case. We need to step up and find a new plaintiff to destroy the evil apple empire. Or just pass an equivalent of digital markets act in the us.
Or just realize that sometimes, some things need to be Left Alone.
If all the App Devs. Leave Apple, enough Users will Leave Apple; then Apple will Change.
It's called "Free Enterprise" and "Capitalism"; both Concepts Utterly Foreign to the EU Fascists.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The fight isn't over... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Self interested actors do not not reach the collectively optimal result, that is what government is for.
Is it?
Do we really want the heavy hand of Government meddling in matters as Trivial as whether App Developers make 70%, 85% or 97%(!) Profit on their Apps? Because that's really what the Epic Lawsuit comes down to.
The Trial and Appellate Courts got it Exactly right.
Glad EPIC is on the consumer's side (Score:2)
In a series of posts on X, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney wrote:
As of today, developers can begin exercising their court-established right to tell US customers about better prices on the web. These awful Apple-mandated confusion screens are over and done forever. The fight goes on. Regulators are taking action and policymakers around the world are passing new laws to end Apple's illegal and anticompetitive app store practices. The European Union's Digital Markets Act goes into effect March 7.
I'm glad Epic allows alternative in game sales of items to other players and teh creation of skins etc. that can be sold via 3rd party payment processors....
Fuck Apple, but Fuck Tim Sweeny more (Score:2)
I'm happy that neither of them got their appeals heard. Apple should absolutely not be able to force developers to use their payment platform, but at the same time Tim Sweeny isn't owed shit. He's an entitled little shit who spends all his time complaining that other people built something and no one wants to play with his worthless junk instead.
That said it's a wonder they don't get along. Apple is a big company wielding undue influence in the world. Tim is a little man who fancies himself as a monopolist
Re: (Score:2)
[. . .] rather than offering a compelling reason for anyone to choose you or your products.
Precisely.
A Free Market Economy turned on its Head.
Illegal? (Score:2)
Not illegal today if they new laws are required to change Apple's practices. What a load of hyperbole.
Re: (Score:2)
Not illegal today if they new laws are required to change Apple's practices. What a load of hyperbole.
Hardly "Journalism", is it?
or just don't use apple products. (Score:2)
works for me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How about "Don't use either."? Epic is scum. Apple is over-priced crud.
Best of both worlds.
Admittedly, watching them slap each other around like cry babies having a hissy-fit has been fun.