Apple Loses Stay Request in Epic Game Case

Posted on November 10, 2021 by Paul Thurrott in Apple with 8 Comments

A federal judge denied Apple’s attempt to delay the ruling in its case Epic Games case and said the firm was engaging in “antitrust conduct.” This is yet another indication from the judge that she is ready to come down hard on Apple if given the chance.

“In short, Apple’s motion is based on a selective reading of this Court’s findings and ignores all of the findings which supported the injunction, namely incipient antitrust conduct including supercompetitive commission rates resulting in extraordinarily high operating margins and which have not been correlated to the value of its intellectual property,” federal judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers wrote in the ruling. Apple’s motion, she said, was “fundamentally flawed.”

Judge Gonzalez-Rogers issued a split ruling in the Apple v. Epic case in early September, handing Epic a key victory: Apple was found to be violating California’s anticompetition laws and must allow developers to communicate with their own customers, she ruled, allowing them to bypass Apple’s heady App Store fees. But the judge couldn’t determine that Apple was a monopolist based on the evidence that Epic provided, which would have led to harsher penalties. It also found Epic guilty of breach of contract and fined it $3.5 million.

Apple declared the ruling “resounding victory,” but it then appealed the case in a calculated bid to delay it having to adhere to the ruling, which, among other things, requires it to allow mobile apps developers to communicate with their own customers. That delay has been denied.

“Apple has provided no credible reason for the court to believe that the injunction would cause the professed devastation,” the judge writes in her ruling. “Users can open browsers and retype links to the same effect; it is merely inconvenient, which then only works to the advantage of Apple.”

Apple can still seek a reversal of this ruling with a federal appeals court. And given its behavior so far, it’s safe to assume it will do so.

Tagged with ,

Join the discussion!

BECOME A THURROTT MEMBER:

Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Register
Comments (8)

8 responses to “Apple Loses Stay Request in Epic Game Case”

  1. finaldx

    Bit of a typo here: "A federal judge denied Apple’s attempt to delay the ruling in its case Epic Games case and said...."

  2. pecosbob04

    Interesting word usage; 'split'. I never want to 'split' a candy bar with you if I get10% (9.5 really) and you get 90%.

    • safesax2002

      A split is just "not unanimous". He didn't say an even split.


      Just like a majority can be 51% or 99%, it's still a majority....

      • pecosbob04

        Didn't say it was incorrect . . .just interesting usage. But of course Paul being the wordsmith that he is often has interesting word usages. Also see split decision, split the difference, banana split, doing the splits, they all imply a certain symmetry lacking in this case.

        • jgraebner

          Not really getting what point you are trying to make here. "Split decision" is the common terminology for a legal decision that includes partial verdicts for both sides.

          • pecosbob04

            In split decision I was thinking in terms of boxing.

            • pecosbob04

              So just to be clear, in your opinion a court case in which you lose 9 of the 10 issues before the bar is best described as split decision. Myself I would call it a pretty thorough trouncing where the judge took pity and tossed you cab fare so you didn't have to walk home.

  3. brettscoast

    always enjoy reading a post with Apples loses in the headline, makes the day so much brighter.

Leave a Reply