The News: U.S. Supreme Court rejects appeals from Apple and Epic In Antitrust Case
On January 16, on the 16th day of Jan in the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court denied the appeals of both Apple as well as Epic Games regarding the antitrust lawsuit Epic has launched against Apple in 2020. Reuters reported.
The year was 2021. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers did not agree with the bulk of Epic's arguments in opposition to Apple but she did decide against Epic's rules against developers who wanted to remove users from Apple's networks to make digital purchases. Then in 2023, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 decision.
What Does Apple Think About? Apple Reacts
According to the Associated Press reported that this takes away the block on an order, allowing developers to select different payment methods. Apple also was a party to court papers on January 16th in which the company laid out its plans to comply with the court's order but retain the majority of their expenses.
AP added that Apple's court filing demonstrates Apple's intention to:
- Let developers use hyperlinks to websites that connect to external websites. But, Apple charges 12%-27 percent commission on payments that are made using hyperlinks to other websites.
- Inform consumers of a "scare screen" each time they click an ad, and redirects the customer to a second payment method, advising the user that Apple isn't responsible for these transactions with respect to privacy or security.
- Institute the procedure to apply for pre-approval which AP describes as "potentially challenging" before allowing external-pointing buttons or links to be displayed in iPhone or iPad apps, citing Apple's "effort to reduce the chance of scams, fraud and inconsistencies."
What's it? Epic Games is Reacting
AP stated that the report which outlines the plan "provoked accusations that Apple has acted in breach of trust, and can cause further disputes regarding legal matters," apparently quoting Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney's X (formerly called Twitter) blog post where he stated that "Apple presented a fake 'compliance plan' for the injunction of District Court." District Court."
Sweeney continued by presenting a list of "glaring concerns we've found previously," ending with " Epic will challenge Apple's poor compliance policy through District Court" as an additional part of the filing of an image the aforementioned "scare screen" Apple has included in the Developer Support update to the link to purchase externally.
The day before, Sweeney had posted mixed views, and stated that he was displeasured over the "shocking" decision of the Supreme Court choosing not to look into appeals in this case was "A terrible outcome for all who works in the field" However, he also expressed the hope that " developers can begin taking advantage of the rights of judges of courts inform US consumers about lower prices when they shop online."
Additional Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
The 17th of January, Reuters reported that Apple requested that a judge on Tuesday that Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal fees and other expenses. Reuters says that the demand was motivated by "a lower court ruling where it was determined in the court that Epic Games did not comply with a developer agreement that it had signed in the period of 2010" wherein "Epic was required to bear the cost of legal expenses, as well as additional charges that resulted from violations of."
The same reading is available on Epic and. Apple as well as Epic in comparison to. Google:
About
This post was originally posted on this site
This post was first seen on here