That's irrelevant to the legal principle at play.
Yes but when the judge is considering Apple's position based on the industry standard;
You begin to see how the two can very easily be entwined.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Epic vs. Apple: ”Developers are fleeing Unreal engine” says Epic to court
- Thread starter Infinity Times Two
- Start date
That's irrelevant to the legal principle at play.
Yes but when the judge is considering Apple's position based on the industry standard;
You begin to see how the two can very easily be entwined.
I don't remember but I'm not sure why you'd feel that's legally relevant (it is not).
then under what legal principle would epic or anyone be bringing up in their complaint against console manufacturers? Give me the rules at play then.
They do, but console deals are not always simple. For example, Microsoft and Sony both use Unreal Engine 4 and 5 for their games (Gears, Forza Street, Hellblade, Days Gone, Obsidian games, etc). The deal to use the engine could be the paid custom option that Epic offers, and that could be paid using just money or something like money + 20% of fees instead of 30%. I'm just speculating here, but I don't think every single developer and publisher always gets a 30% fee. As console manufactures are game publishers themselves, they have a lot they can do to avoid a similar situation. Apple does have deals (Amazon doesn't pay 30% for their digital products, for example), but they currently don't offer options for game publishers and most other industries.
She could be referring to relation Google play and other app smartphone stores.
If it is an antitrust violation under the Sherman Act for Apple to not allow Epic to host their own storefront on IOS, it may very well be a similar violation for Microsoft or Sony to not allow Epic to host their own stores.
Relying on the argument that these goods are not "essential" when the Sherman Act has been used to regulate other non-essential industries doesn't appear like it could be a very sound argument.
If Epic were to win hypothetically, ios doesn't magically become like a pc overnight. Epic would have to come up with a storefront to compete with Apple's app store. Customers would then download said app store, if and only if Epic makes it a compelling enough offer for them. Otherwise I imagine things largely go unchanged besides the larger ramifications of other competition. I'd guess many people would stick with Apple's store out of convenience until the monetary incentive gets too good to pass up.
Basically take what they're doing with the Epic Store vs Steam and scale it down to mobile.
Basically take what they're doing with the Epic Store vs Steam and scale it down to mobile.
Possibly, we don't know. Although you can bet Apple will force the issue by pointing to consoles and Steam taking the same cut defend itself, and I am not sure the argument of "this industry isn't 'essential', so antitrust violations aren't possible" is gonna win out there.
This is not the judge trying to drag consoles into the argument. It's a point about the wider applicability of the 30% cut which is being acknowledged as the standard, which might have some later bearing on the case, in Apple's favour. If that point gets argued and accepted and is the basis for judgement in this case, then it means Epic loses.
So you expect that epic (or others) would have a per se argument for price fixing thru the Sherman act if precedent by this case it set and used for subsequent cases?
I'm not saying that it's legally relevant. I'm just saying that Epic would most likely file another suit to target console platforms next (if they somehow wins this).
I see. Interesting. I do feel that 30% is too much. I honestly think Epic would have gotten a deal with Apple if they just wanted more money. But they smelled blood with all the antitrust issues around Apple and decided to go for the kill. IMO. Lol.
Well the judge has to determine whether the 30% is exploitative or not. One of the ways to do that is to look at similar markets and judge whether Apple is enforcing a particularly high revenue share.
And if Apple can point to the same software (Fortnite) and point out multiple other sources taking the same revenue share for the same software, for the Court to then say the 30% is exploitative may very well lead to these other sources being exploitative as well.
There is no way in hell someone will convince a court that an iPhone is essential. Sure cell phones are semi essential but an iPhone? I will be amazed if they prove that.
Didn't work on an embedded video. Apple attorneys state that they don't need to manufacture this to bring suit but the case would be thrown out quickly otherwise.
I don't think you could make the argument smartphones are essential but Iphones somehow aren't. By definition they would be smartphones no? Can't see what would make them legally distinct.
There are zero barriers to buying a phone that's not an iPhone.
It's very possible unless Epic points to something that isolates Apple and Google. Saying consoles aren't as important as smartphones therefore antitrust violations are permissible in that market isn't really a legal argument.
No one needs to buy an iPhone. iPhones by definition are luxury cell phones that are sold at a large premium for their structured system. That includes the App Store.
your argument is like saying since having a car is essential a Mercedes is then essential since a Mercedes is a car.
I fail to see how that prevents Iphones from being defined as providing an essential service though? It functions as any other smartphone would. In the US they have around a 39% market share. Just because they bill themselves as a premium product, it doesn't alter the fact it's providing a service comprable to other cheaper devices. The judge could very easily put them in the same camp. But it remains to be seen I guess.
Yes, they could. As I say, it would need to be an entirely new case based on different arguments. They would win or lose that separate case based on its own merits.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that there's an equal relationship between Apple winning or losing and the 30% cut being deemed okay or not okay. If the 30% cut is deemed okay since it's industry-standard, Apple (probably) win this case. If Apple lose the case, it does not follow that the 30% cut can't continue to exist in other markets.
Yes, potentially, but only after a new case with new arguments based on those other markets, because console markets are not included in this case.
That's the challenge Epic have set themselves up for. I'm not making any calls about how likely they are to succeed, only that that's the foundation of argument.
Except in this case there are two utility companies in town who can keep you in a long term contract where you're unable to negotiate any of the terms, the utilities can change their own terms and raise prices whenever they want, and if you're sick of it, they tell you to go somewhere else knowing full well there *isn't* somewhere else. Oh, and if you refuse to pay your bill they cut off the utility for everyone in your neighborhood as retaliation.
An agreement which is one sided and completely non-negotiable, changeable at any time for any reason by only one party, and offered by only two companies who own 100% of the market, isn't actually fair or competitive, and in a functional government, would itself be grounds for an anti-trust suit. Sadly, our government isn't functional and doesn't actually care about competition, and any EU decisions will only affect the EU.
All that being said, I'll continue to keep saying fuck Epic and fuck Fortnite. They're pressing the issue for all the wrong reasons, and everyone's too busy stanning for their particular horse in the race to pay attention to the real problem.
It would establish, at a minimum, that Apple does not hold a monopoly over that "essential service", which is Epics claim.
It's a luxury version of a smartphone. Anybody that sets out to buy an iPhone, by definition, is not acquiring an essential item. They're treating themselves.
Why would an antitrust lawsuit be dismissed due to a lack of damages instead of the case's antitrust merits regarding Apple's store policies, platform, etc.? Besides, if you are arguing that Apple's store practices are unlawful, their unlawful fees are your "damages" and you don't need to breach your contract to demonstrate that when you already have years of records regarding these fees.
Apple is definitely not the good guy, either. But out of the two, Apple is the one who can make more damage with monopolistic policies. Also, with those policies, Apple affects many small developers.
It's not but also, this is a video game forum and I'm on mobile. Anyways even if not a per se violation under the Sherman act as you've stated none of the elements care about how "essential" a product is and therefore it is irrelevant.
Because epic doesn't have a leg to stand on without first being injured. If Tim wants to bring this case because they don't want to pay they'd get laughed out of court but because of apples response their antitrust arguments hold more weight to Apple having a strangle hold on the market.
you're right they could file suit regardless but like you stated the damages they'd be claiming they've been paying also in this case it wouldn't be their only damages claimed I'd imagine.
Last edited:
Epic's filing reads broad enough that it jeopardizes walled gardens in general as a legal principle though. You wouldn't really need to re-litigate it for anybody else unless the ruling drew some distinction.
Now it may do this, but there hasn't really been much reasoning as to why it would, since I can't see anything in the Sherman Act that limits it to "essential" markets, it regulates "markets' in general.
This could very well pan out that way. I suppose it depends on whether or not the Judge sees a monopoly within the App marketplace of each smartphone ecosystem, rather then the smartphone market as a whole.
If I bought really fancy plumbing it would be treated the same as less expensive plumbing in regards to being an essential service would it not? Just because iPhone's are luxury goods, they can still be seen as providing a essential service. I don't know if this has ever been litigated before now. So correct me if I'm wrong, but this case may see some rulings in regards to how these products are defined.
I totally disagree. Epic define the markets they want addressed - they are iOS-specific markets. Epic outline their arguments - they include arguments that do not apply to consoles (not just the one I posted earlier - many of their arguments are specific to mobile phones).
Oh course there is nothing in the act to limit it to essential markets. Some of the things it regulates, such as price-fixing, are applicable to any company in any market, regardless of size or importance.
However, the fact remains that business practices that might be perfectly acceptable in one market can be considered anti-competitive practice in another market, and the chance of that kind of ruling grows with the size and importance of the market in question. That's why Epic include that argument in their suit in the first place.
lol I'm sorry is the city / county delivering your data to your phone now?
Thats not my point. If smartphones as a whole are deemed essential, and I'm not even saying they are , what makes Iphones special besides being expensive. Why should they be any different in regard to service?
Well first of all you made a comparison to a delivery method of a utility that's provided by a municipality. I responded initially to that.
And yes, an iPhone being a luxury good makes it so it's not a necessity. I can even argue that smartphones themselves are not a necessity, but rather the delivery of data is a necessity. No, an iPhone is *not* a necessity and it's absurd to twist that logic otherwise.
Why would a market of hundreds of millions of devices be beholden to a significantly different legal principle to a market of billions of devices?
Both are extremely large, though Apple's is enormous, but it's not clear to me why it would be differently viewed by a Court.
Would, say, as a hypothetical, if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo boosted their userbase, they need to open their walled gardens? I'm not sure what the legal argument is here.
Right. My arguemnt was just that iPhones are themselves smartphones. You can't distinguish them from that category when treating them as a entity. Or at least I find it far fetched. That's it. I never said IPhones or smartphones themselves were essential. You can go back an read my posts. As far as I know it's still to be seen in the courts.
Well I can guarantee you that no judge nor court will ever classify an iPhone as an essential good because it features a delivery method of an essential utility (data). If we go down that rabbit hole then we can argue that a gaming laptop with built-in 4G LTE is a necessity because by its function, it can do anything a smartphone can do, so where do you draw the line?
The legal definitions here are murky at best. I tried to do a bit of digging, but nothing concrete has appeared . Some things have strict protections under the definitions of utilities, and the food and drug acts, others are more nebulous. It's all under different legislation, and I'm not even sure if it's pertinent to this antitrust case.
My point was to treat IPhones like other phones as they essentially do the same thing with more bells in whistles. In your example yes, if general computers have to adhere to a standard then even fancy luxury computers should be considered the same.
It's not the legal principle that would be different, it's the markets themselves. Huge markets for essential things with a dominant company are qualitatively different to markets that are smaller or for luxuries or which are more freely competitive, and the Act itself is a qualitative piece of legislation.
Potentially yes (though it would require a new suit, as I've repeatedly said), with an even higher chance of a yes if that userbase boost resulted in consoles somehow, impractically, becoming the primary general computing device in the lives of many people.
Like I said in the last thread, some fantasy that iPhones will be somehow classified as an essential good will continue to be just that. "Along the highest end devices in a non-essential category [smartphones]" is like the least compelling argument ever, right there next to "well it delivers the essential good of 'data'". That's like arguing a mansion is essential because it delivers shelter.
I am still confused by how Apple has a monopoly here. What makes Apple a monopoly?
In what way are they different? Do violations under the Sherman Act not apply to a product with userbases in the hundreds of millions? What is the threshold?
IPhones can't escape regulation just by being a luxury product. If smartphones are regulated then IPhones must be regulated. Now whether or not smartphones should be regulated or considered a essential product in the first place is another issue entirely.
The argument from Epic is Apple has monopolies in 2 markets: Who gets to put apps on iOS and the payment processing app developers get to use on iOS.
You have to focus on storefronts outside of mobile because there are only 4 significant mobile stores today in the US (Apple, Google, Amazon, and Samsung) and 2 of them are involved in these lawsuits. Other storefronts being used as examples of industry standards doesn't mean they might be implicated in any broader antitrust action, it only indicates that they are needed to provide a fully fleshed out view of industry standards within the wider world of digital software sales.