Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
What do the U.S. Department of Justice, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Microsoft, and over 30 sates in the Union have in common? They’re all against Apple in its fight with Fornite publisher Epic. Well… the DoJ isn’t against Apple. Nor is it for Epic, according to a post from Law360. Rather, a segment highlighted by Apple 3.0 says:
The DOJ filed an amicus brief [with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals] on Thursday — (…) — supporting neither side in the appeal but asking the appellant panel to correct what it said were serious issues with the trial court’s ruling that “could imperil effective antitrust enforcement, especially in the digital economy.”
So they’re not against Apple. They just think Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers got it wrong when she ruled that Apple’s App Store wasn’t a monopoly. At about the same time, a piece from Engadget says:
…Microsoft, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the attorneys general of 35 states have filed briefs supporting Epic's case with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The states argued the district court mistakenly claimed the first section of the Sherman Act (a cornerstone of US antitrust law) didn't apply to unilateral contracts like the terms Apple set for developers.
That was part of the DoJ’s argument as well, though the piece in Engadget goes further. It has the states and organizations arguing that Judge Gonzales Rogers “didn't properly weigh the damage of Apple's claimed anti-competitive behavior versus the benefits…” Not sure how she was supposed to weigh the damage of something she ruled didn’t exist, but what the heck do I know?
Microsoft had other complaints specific to Microsoft, it seems. Engadget indicated that issues alluded to include “Apple's effective ban on cloud gaming services,” which may hinder one of Mr. Softy’s Xbox services. Microsoft also argued that Apple's in-app payment requirement is anti-competitive.
And the EFF says the states are right - that Judge Gonzales Rogers should have weighed the harm being done to consumers. Also, consumers are kind of stupid.
I hate to be the one to break it to you.
According to Engadget:
The [EFF] also said the district court made errors when it presumed customers were fully aware of Apple's policies when they joined the company's platform.
What does all of this mean? Maybe nothing. The piece says “the appeals court isn't obliged to consider” the statements. Then again - big names, lots of states… may have some influence. Apple, meanwhile, is striking the pose of the unconcerned. In a statement to CNET, Apple said:
We're optimistic that the ruling will be affirmed on appeal… We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace for consumers and a great opportunity for developers.
