The latter in the Epic v. Apple lawsuit alleging monopoly practices would begin next month, and the main arguments of each company were published today, trimmed to some extent at the discretion of the court. With the basic facts agreed, the two companies will go to battle about what they mean, and their CEO will likely take a (virtual) stand to do so.
As we have covered in previous months, the emphasis of Epic’s argument is that Apple’s hold on the app market and the 30 percent standard fee amount for anti-competitive behavior that must be regulated by antitrust law. This revolted against what Apple described as an illegal practice by moving its own in-game currency store to the popular game Fortnite, bypassing the game’s methods. (CEO Tim Sweeney would later, and inadvertently, compare it to opposing unjust laws in the civil rights movement.)
Apple denies the monopoly charge, pointing out that it faces heavy competition throughout the market, not within its own App Store. And as to the size of the fees – well, maybe this is a case that could stand some adjustment (the company has taken it to 15% by 2020 after the first million criticisms of any developer), but it Hardly unlawful.
For its part, Apple says that the entire antitrust accusation and associated dust-kicking is little more than a PR stunt, and it has something in the way of receipts.
After the epic, the entire PR strategy is ready when it gets ready to file a lawsuit, and describes the filings “Project Liberty”, a long-term program within the company that, in Apple’s opinion, borders revenue Fortnite. Epic appears to have paid $ 300K to a PR firm to advise on a “two-step communications plan”, which includes a multi-company complaints campaign against Apple and Google through Apple’s fairness to the app.
Project Liberty has produced an entire section in Apple’s filings detailing how the company and Sweeney planned to “lure Google into a legal battle over anti-trust”, (and possibly Apple) according to internal emails , Stores to circumvent their payment system by banning this app. Epic only mentions Project Liberty in one paragraph, explaining that it kept the program a secret because “Epic would not have disclosed about it since Apple rejected version 13.40. Fortnite, “meaning. There is one with built-in aggressive payment system. This is not much of a defense.
Whether Apple’s fees are too high, and whether Epic is doing so to extend Fortnite’s profitable days, the case itself will be determined based on antitrust law and doctrine, and things on this front specifically for Apple Doesn’t look serious
Although legal arguments and fact summaries run to hundreds of pages on both sides, the whole thing is very well summarized in the very first sentence of the epic filing: “This case is within two markets within Apple’s own iOS ecosystem But it is about monopolizing. “
To be specific, it is about whether Apple can be said to have a monopoly on an ecosystem that it has created and administered from the start, and one that has been created by competitors in the digital distribution and gaming space all Proves on the sides. This is a novel application of antitrust law and one that would carry a high burden of proof for Epic – and a (jointly amateur) review of the argument does not suggest that there is much potential for success.
But a random reporter’s opinion is not much in the accounting of things; There is to be a trial, and one is going to happen next month. There is a lot of ground to cover, as Epic’s presentation of his arguments would need to be done as carefully as Apple’s dismantling. To that end we can expect live testimony from Apple CEO Tim Cook, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, Apple’s former head of marketing, and Phil Filler, familiar with others.
The timing and nature of that testimony or inquiry will not be known later, but it is likely that there will be some interesting conversation worth listening to. The trial is scheduled to begin on May 3 and last for about 3 weeks.
There are some other lawsuits hovering specifically related to this, such as Apple’s countersuit against Epic alleging breach of contract. Many of these will depend entirely on the outcome of the main case – such as if Apple’s terms were found to be unlawful, if there was no contract to break, or if not, Epic accepts a lot of breaking the rules, so the case Is already over practically.
You can read complete “Facts of Proposed Findings” documents from each party on the invaluable RECAP; Case number is 4: 20-cv-05640.