Comment by mrkstu
2 years ago
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.
2 years ago
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of New Jersey, which is under the Third Circuit, the decision in Epic v. Apple is, at best, persuasive precedent, not binding precedent.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.
> Unless there is legislation that forces something, the ship for the app store has sailed.
Simply asserting that doesn't make it true. Even if the app-store related claims in US v. Apple were identical, legally and in alleged facts, to those in Epic v. Apple, the ruling in the latter is not binding precedent for the former because Circuit Court decisions don't bind Districts in other Circuits. And, they aren't identical, anyway.
> Not to mention, several companies have some version of this, including game consoles.
So what? “Other companies do similar things” is not an argument against it being part of an illegal monopolization scheme when others do it. Like browser/OS bundling with Internet Explorer, its not the act in isolation, but its function in context and in conjunction with other business practices that is at issue.
Its not a question of whether an app store fee is on its face illegal, its a question of whwther Apple’s app store fee is part of a broader anticompetitive effort to defend and extend monopoly intthe smartphone and/or performance smartphone markets.