On Monday, Federal Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) presented an unconventional closing debate in the antitrust trial between Epic Games and Apple. Attorneys on both sides spent three hours discussing what she could and Should change the scope of Apple’s App Store business.
App makers and regulators around the world are paying attention to the trial. Gonzalez Rogers (Gonzalez Rogers) posed sharp questions to Apple. She may accept some Fortnite game creators’ claims about Apple’s abuse of their rights. Control of the App Store and allegations of harming developers.
Last week, a federal judge said that Apple’s app store profits from game makers seemed “disproportionate”, but on Monday, she asked Epic if there was a way to resolve her concerns without forcing Apple to open up to rival app stores. iPhone, just like Epic. suggested.
She said that this will be a complete change, “the court will not operate a business.” She also pointed out that the changes mean unexpected gains for Epic. During the trial period, Epic discussed its own efforts to create a competitor’s paid app store.
She said: “Let us be clear. The epic exists because if relief is given, it will change from a multi-billion-dollar company to a multi-billion-dollar company. But this is not out of his inner goodwill. .”.
Epic’s lawyer Gary Bornstein insisted on Epic’s request since the filing of the case last year: to force Apple to open the iPhone to competing app stores and prohibit it from requiring developers to use its in-app payment system.
Gonzalez Rogers (Gonzalez Rogers) said that according to Epic’s proposed changes, the company is likely not to pay Apple any fees, a fact that “caused her attention” throughout the trial.
Gambia Rogers (Gonzalez Rogers) said that the epic CEO Tim Sweeney promoted the company’s legal strategy and participated in the entire trial. “There is a reasonable argument that (Apple) is using these profits to benefit the entire ecosystem.”
Sometimes Gonzalez Rogers questioned other issues, such as an Apple rule that prohibits developers from using email addresses collected from iPhone users to promote marketing methods that avoid Apple’s in-app purchase system.
She said: “Apple seems to be anti-competitive to hide this information in a way that does not directly reflect it to consumers.”
Throughout the day, Apple’s lawyers argued that the epic wide range of requirements would make Apple, like the Android system, essentially reduce consumer choice.
Apple’s lawyer Veronica Moye said: “Apple wants to maintain product differentiation.” Anyone who wants a third-party app store “is free to buy an Android device. The relief requested here is to force Apple to The company will withdraw competing products from the market.”
In order to make a decision, the judge will have to review 4,500 pages of testimony, which she said may take several months.
Thomson Reuters 2021 ©