![]() "While the Court has found that evidence suggests Apple's 30% rate of commission appears inflated, and is potentially anticompetitive, Epic Games did not challenge the rate," she wrote. Throughout her ruling, the judge took moments to underscore how she was "not persuaded" by Epic's "broad-brush" arguments. While Epic largely lost its case against Apple, Rogers said it didn't necessarily have to. "That's been Democrats' argument - that new antitrust laws are needed to deal with tech platforms' business models"Įpic didn't just take on Apple in the courts, it also started a marketing campaign, #FreeFortnite, and began an advocacy organization called the Coalition for App Fairness. "The core of today's ruling is that Apple is not in violation of federal antitrust law," he wrote in a note to investors Friday. Paul Gallant, an analyst at Cowen, said the ruling may spur lawmakers in Washington to pass legislation that would force app stores to change. "The main thrust of the Court's ruling is that 'success is not illegal.'"īut it may not stay that way. "For Big Tech, there's a sigh of relief because the walls of their gardens will not come tumbling down today, even if this ruling tries to put some cracks in it," said Paul Swanson, a lawyer at Holland & Hart who specializes in antitrust issues. Apple in particular touted its " walled garden" approach - in which it has approved every app offered through its App Store since it opened in 2008 - as a feature of its devices, promising that users can trust any app they download because it's been vetted. Apple and Google have defended their app stores and payment policies, saying their developer guidelines are designed to protect users and to ensure equal treatment of app makers, who've made millions of apps for both platforms combined.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |