The iPhone App Store battle reaches the Court of Appeals
Written byTimes Magazine
Apple and the company behind the popular video game Fortnite faced off Monday before three federal Circuit Court judges who will decide in the next round in a high-stakes battle whether the iPhone App Store is an illegal monopoly that is tough works against competition and raises consumer prices. Oral arguments filed by attorneys for Apple and Fortnite maker Epic Games in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals came 14 months after a lower court judge issued a ruling that largely retained Apple's exclusive control around the world World.
The 75-minute session is the prelude to an appeals court ruling that is expected to be released sometime next year.
The so-called "walled garden" that protects iPhone app stores includes a payment system that pays commissions of between 15% and 30% on the purchase of some subscriptions and other digital services, a facility worth about US$15,000 million brings in dollars. to $20 billion for Apple, which helped increase its market value to nearly $2.4 trillion. Apps that helped make iPhones even more popular.
Apple attorney Mark Perry's 30-minute presentation focused on defending the walled garden as a must-have feature valued by consumers who want the best possible protection for the personal information they store on mobile devices that have become an additional appendage for many consumers. He also described the barrier as a way for the iPhone to differentiate itself from devices running on Google 9 87 Android, which is not as restrictive and is licensed for a variety ofManufacturer. Perry even pointed to previous affidavits from Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, who attended Monday's arguments. owns an iPhone, in part for its security and privacy features.
During his questioning, two of the three judges: Milan D.Smith Jr.and Michael J. McShane, seemed to wrestle over whether Epic had even done enough to prove its case, contributing to US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' findings last year that the App Store and the Apple payment system do not constitute an illicit market.
On several occasions, Smith questioned whether Epic was successful in defining the market, a key factor in the antitrust case, while McShane questioned whether Epic had shown Apple to disgruntled consumers cumbersome and too expensive to switch her iPhone to an Android device.
At one point, while cross-examining Epic's Goldstein, Smith noted that Apple "seemed to have made a pretty good case for 'lack of evidence' in the lower court.McShane said he doesn't believe Epic's claim that Apple has forced consumers to keep their iPhones and said that's not why it isn't changing the type of smartphone it uses. "I'm too lazy to change." McShane said: "There are many reasons people don't switch phones. The panel's third judge, Sidney R.
Thomas, was calmer during the altercations, asking only one question on a complex subject that provided little information about it." how you might lean.
Trending News
