Mike Peterson
The game company on Wednesday filed an appeal reply and cross-appeal response brief in the Epic Games v. Apple legal battle. In its argument, Epic Games alleges that the U.S. District Court "committed multiple legal errors in rejecting Epic's Sherman Act claims."
In its original lawsuit, Epic claimed that Apple violated the Sherman Act by denying it access to the App Store, which it claimed as an essential facility. The Sherman Act dictates free commerce and competition across the U.S.
Additionally, Epic Games claims that the court made a mistake in sustaining Apple's restrictions.
"The court found substantial anticompetitive effects but erroneously credited justifications that do not advance competition and ignored its own factual findings establishing less restrictive alternatives," the brief reads.
Epic also tries to counter an argument that its demands would weaken Apple's iOS security. It claims that Apple touts the security of the Mac, which does not have the same protections as iOS. However, during the trial, Apple made it clear that it finds the level of malware on macOS unacceptable.
U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled mostly in Apple's favor back in September 2021 after a lengthy trial. She handed Apple a win on basically every point except the company's ban on steering, or allowing developers to communicate with customers about cheaper subscription options.
Apple has successfully obtained a stay on an injunction that would force it to allow steering within apps. Beyond that, both Apple and Epic Games have appealed the ruling.
In its own brief submitted to the court in March, Apple argued that Judge Gonzalez Roger's ruling should stand because Epic Games' original lawsuit was badly flawed and because the company failed to prove wrongdoing on Apple's part.
Epic's Response and Reply Brief by Mike Wuerthele on Scribd
-m.jpg)
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Sponsored Content
Christine McKee
Thomas Sibilly
18 Comments
‘When the argument is lost, the slander begins…’
No Epic, Apple didn't lead the court astray. You did so after breaching contract and foisted a frivolous lawsuit upon Apple and the people.
You're exposed as idiots already, just pack up your little charade and go home.
Didn't Epic rotted on the vine?! One can only dream.
The Sherman Act requires unreasonable restraint of trade to apply. Epic did the vast majority of their trade per Fortnite on console and PC, then later ported the game to mobile to maximize revenue. Apple didn't prevent them from being on iOS. Fornite was on the App Store until Epic deliberately chose to violate store rules. Apple told them that Fortnite would be allowed back in the store if they agreed to follow the rules while the lawsuit was ongoing. Epic didn't take them up on the offer, lost the initial ruling, and now has returned Fornite to iOS via browser streaming (which requires no approval at all from Apple).
So that means their current legal maneuvers are purely for media/public consumption. They know they have no case, but Congress hasn't passed any legislation yet so they have to continue the play the victim.
Hmmm…sounds like a former co-worker who was obsessed with me (negative transference). If I ignored her (stayed as far away as possible) she would go out of her way to pick fights with me.
This Epic situation sounds uncomfortably familiar.