Epic losing their suit pretty much torpedoed that plank. The findings there would basically tread the same ground and were already found in Apple's favor as a matter of law.
> The findings there would basically tread the same ground and were already found in Apple's favor as a matter of law.
Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Epic v. Apple, even the exact same legal question with the exact same fact pattern would only be bound by that decision if it was (1) between the same parties (res judicata), or (2) in a district court under the Ninth Circuit.
Since US v. Apple is filed in the District of New Jersey, which is under the Third Circuit, the decision in Epic v. Apple is, at best, persuasive precedent, not binding precedent.
Unless there is legislation that forces something, the ship for the app store has sailed. Not to mention, several companies have some version of this, including game consoles. And even legislation in the area seems hard to draft, as seen by DMA.
Epic losing their suit pretty much torpedoed that plank. The findings there would basically tread the same ground and were already found in Apple's favor as a matter of law.
> The findings there would basically tread the same ground and were already found in Apple's favor as a matter of law.
Because the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Epic v. Apple, even the exact same legal question with the exact same fact pattern would only be bound by that decision if it was (1) between the same parties (res judicata), or (2) in a district court under the Ninth Circuit.
Since US v. Apple is filed in the District of New Jersey, which is under the Third Circuit, the decision in Epic v. Apple is, at best, persuasive precedent, not binding precedent.
Unless there is legislation that forces something, the ship for the app store has sailed. Not to mention, several companies have some version of this, including game consoles. And even legislation in the area seems hard to draft, as seen by DMA.
1 reply →