Epic Games filed a notice appealing a federal judge’s decision in a lawsuit alleging that Apple has been managing an illegal monopoly that stifles competition. The maker of the popular video game Fortnite said Sunday in a court filing that it will take the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. (Patrick Semansky, Associated Press)
WASHINGTON – Epic Games filed a notice appealing a federal judge’s decision in a lawsuit alleging that Apple has managed an illegal monopoly that stifles competition.
The maker of the popular video game Fortnite said Sunday in a court filing that it will take the ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
In a 185-page ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to dismantle a lucrative portion of the competitive barricade guarding its narrow iPhone app store, but rejected Epic’s allegations that Apple had a monopoly.
Epic’s notice of appeal said he would appeal the final judgment “and all orders that lead to or produce that judgment.”
The ruling continues to erode the so-called “walled garden” that Apple has built around its crown jewel, the iPhone, and its app store, without completely knocking it down.
The decision also provided Apple with a certain claim. The judge did not classify Apple as a monopolist nor did it require it to allow competing stores to offer apps for iPhone, iPad and iPod.
These were two of the biggest goals Epic sought, which presented what it hoped would be an iconic antitrust case last year after blatantly challenging an exclusive payment system that channels between 15% and 30% of all digital transactions from the iPhone app to Apple. .
These transactions can range from Netflix or Spotify subscriptions to the sale of digital items such as songs, movies, or virtual tchotchkes for video games. Epic launched that highly lucrative quota as a price reduction tactic that would not be possible if competing stores were allowed to offer iPhone apps.
While some parts of his decision raised questions about whether Apple’s rates were raising consumer prices, González Rogers left the rate structure intact and confirmed the company’s right to prevent other stores from offering apps for on your iPhone. He sided with Apple on all other key points in the case.
But the judge concluded that Apple has maintained unfair competition under California law, prompting it to order the company to allow developers across the U.S. to insert links to other payment options other than its own. iPhone applications. This change would make it easier for app developers to avoid paying Apple commissions, which could affect billions of dollars in annual revenue.
Apple did its best to define the decision as a complete victory, though it acknowledged that it can appeal the part of the ruling that will make it easier for app developers to evade Apple’s commissions.