Apple Loses Stay Request in Epic Game Case

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.”

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

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

Share post

Please check our Community Guidelines before commenting

Conversation 8 comments

  • finaldx

    Premium Member
    10 November, 2021 - 9:50 am

    <p>Bit of a typo here: "<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">A federal judge denied Apple’s attempt to delay the ruling in its case Epic Games case and said…."</span></p>

  • pecosbob04

    10 November, 2021 - 9:51 am

    <p>Interesting word usage; ‘<strong>split</strong>’. I never want to ‘<strong>split</strong>’ a candy bar with you if I get10% (9.5 really) and you get 90%.</p>

    • safesax2002

      10 November, 2021 - 10:50 am

      <p>A split is just "not unanimous". He didn’t say an even split.</p><p><br></p><p>Just like a majority can be 51% or 99%, it’s still a majority….</p>

      • pecosbob04

        10 November, 2021 - 12:03 pm

        <p>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.</p>

        • jgraebner

          Premium Member
          10 November, 2021 - 2:06 pm

          <p>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.</p>

          • pecosbob04

            10 November, 2021 - 3:21 pm

            <p>In split decision I was thinking in terms of boxing.</p>

            • pecosbob04

              10 November, 2021 - 3:31 pm

              <p>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.</p>

  • brettscoast

    Premium Member
    10 November, 2021 - 6:43 pm

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

Windows Intelligence In Your Inbox

Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Thurrott © 2024 Thurrott LLC