runningpolt.blogg.se

1. APPLE VS EPIC CASE FOR FREE
2. APPLE VS EPIC CASE ANDROID

You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals.

APPLE VS EPIC CASE FOR FREE

Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals? The panel held that independent of the district court’s errors, Epic failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive alternative means for Apple to accomplish the procompetitive justifications supporting iOS’s walled garden ecosystem. The panel held that the district court erred as a matter of law in defining the relevant antitrust market, but those errors were harmless. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of antitrust liability and its corresponding rejection of Epic’s illegality defense to Apple’s breach of contract counter-claim. The panel affirmed except for the district court’s ruling respecting attorney fees, where it reversed and remanded for further proceedings. in favor of Epic on its UCL claim against Epic on Apple’s claim for breach of contract and against Apple on its claim for attorney fees.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, against Epic Games on its Sherman Act claims for restraint of trade, tying, and monopoly maintenance against Apple, Inc. Apple counter-sued for breach of contract and indemnification for its attorney fees arising from this litigation. Epic contends that Apple acted unlawfully by restricting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple’s App Store, requiring in-app purchases on iOS devices to use Apple’s in-app payment processor, and limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users.

pursuant to the Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Google was determined not to let this happen.Epic Games, Inc.

APPLE VS EPIC CASE ANDROID

Google also recognized that the “ecent Fortnite + Samsung partnership further amplifies risk & urgency of problem” facing its monopoly position in Android app distribution. Google calculated the total at-risk revenue from the threatened loss of market share in Android app distribution to be $3.6B, with the probability-weighted loss “conservative” estimated at $550M through 2021. And finally, Google even identified a risk that “ll remaining titles co-launch off Play”. Then, other “ajor developers”, including Electronic Arts, King, Supercell and Ubisoft, will choose to “colaunch off Play”, collaborating to forego Google’s distribution services as well. Google feared that the “contagion” would spread in this way: first, inspired by Epic’s example, “owerful developers” such as “Blizzard, Valve, Sony, Nintendo”-creators of some of the most popular and profitable entertainment-would be “able to go on their own”, bypassing Play by directly distributing their own apps. In particular, documents that Google’s Finance Director for Platforms and Ecosystems prepared for the CFO of Alphabet around the time of Fortnite’s launch on Android showed that Google feared what it termed a “contagion risk” resulting from more and more app developers forgoing Google Play.