Apple beat Epic Games 9-1 in court. Now it’s appealed the one point it lost • The Register

Apple appealed one of its lawsuits against Epic Games, although it largely won the case.

IGiant’s legal agreement with Epic relates to the game developer’s decision to sell virtual goods directly from his great game Fortnite and to do so at a discount compared to the prices offered in Apple’s App Store. Epic did this in part to point out that a 30 percent reduction in purchases in Apple apps increases the prices of apps and digital goods.

Apple responded by launching Fortnite from the App Store and canceling Epic’s developer account.

The dispute reached the court and Apple mostly won – U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers found that Apple is not a monopolist and is recognized in favor of the fruit company on nine out of ten points.

But Epic Games won on one issue, which concerns California’s “anti-government” statutes, which prohibit the selection of service providers.

To understand management, consider the rules for filing a car insurance claim in California. Insurance companies like to “direct” policyholders to repair shops that they know can do the job at a low cost, which saves insurers money. California law believes that “governance” deprives consumers of their choice, allowing policyholders to choose their preferred service, regardless of the insurer’s preferences.

Judge Rodgers found that by insisting on allowing only the App Store for purchases, Apple was on the wrong side of California’s management laws and issued an order denying Apple the right to prohibit developers from using — or even offering — payment options. from third countries.

And as the American law firm Sullivan and Cromwell wrote in a Note“The court order paves the way for app developers to avoid Apple’s 30 percent commission on in-app purchases, allowing them to target customers with cheaper alternatives.”

Therefore, Apple remains at risk of losing the sweet, strong and stable revenue stream, which it believes is essential for financing the current secure operations of the App Store.

Hence this appeal.

Apple also sought the revocation of Judge Rodgers’ order, in a submission [PDF] it says it’s necessary because complying with its requirements “would upset the careful balance between developers and customers provided by the App Store and cause irreparable damage to both Apple and consumers.”

“The requested stay will allow Apple to protect consumers and protect its platform as the company works on the complex and rapidly evolving legal, technological and economic issues that any revision of these guidelines would entail.”

The application also claims that Apple will win on appeal and that Epic will not suffer if the order is left because there are no products in the App Store.

Another thread of Apple’s argument argues that the ban may have been applicable at the time the first case was resolved, but with the development of the app market and the App Store, it could be a blunt tool that stops the company from responding to changing the market.

“Apple is working hard to address these difficult issues in a changing world, improving the flow of information without compromising the user experience,” the statement said. “Lifting the ban would allow Apple to do so in a way that maintains the integrity of the ecosystem, and that could eliminate the need for any governance provisions.”

This hint that Apple may be open to arrangements that are not considered management is a recognition, but also a nod to the realities the company faces after allowing certain payments from third countries in Japan, policy change in the US to reduce commissions paid by small developers and the introduction of In South Korea a law requiring access to third party payment systems. ®