advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: September 10, 2021 11:21AM
Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in high-profile Epic case Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"

Apple is not an illegal monopoly but has engaged in illegal anticompetitive conduct, a California federal judge ruled Friday in the high-profile case brought by Epic Games.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that “the court does not find that it is impossible,” but rather that Epic failed to demonstrate that Apple is “an illegal monopolist.”

“Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws,” the judge said in the decision.

Gonzalez Rogers also issued an injunction “permanently” restraining Apple from prohibiting developers to include external links directing customers to options to make purchases outside of the in-app payment system.

Epic, the developer behind the popular Fortnite game, alleged Apple’s App Store rules are anticompetitive. The company alleged that Apple limited developers' ability to direct consumers to alternative payment methods, collecting up to 30 percent commission fees.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2021 11:25AM by Steve G..
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: Steve G.
Date: September 10, 2021 11:28AM
(Epic won the case.)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: ztirffritz
Date: September 10, 2021 11:30AM
Can't Epic just move to Android and abandon Apple?



**************************************
MacResource User Map: [www.zeemaps.com]#
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: RgrF
Date: September 10, 2021 11:54AM
Quote
ztirffritz
Can't Epic just move to Android and abandon Apple?

Epic is suing Google as well, hasn't gone to court yet.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: deckeda
Date: September 10, 2021 12:57PM
Quote
ztirffritz
Can't Epic just move to Android and abandon Apple?

Epic, and consumers, can move to any other gaming system they wish. And they can move back again. All this does is open another store but implications of increased competition are mostly imagined from what I see.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: Speedy
Date: September 10, 2021 01:42PM
Buying opportunity.

Apple is not a monopoly which is a win.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: sekker
Date: September 10, 2021 03:20PM
I do not lease my car, I buy.

The same is true for my housing (now), and has always been true for my computers - Mac, Windows, LINUX - or my mobile devices from my Palm PDAs to iPhones.

Sorry, Apple - you do NOT 'own' the iPhone I paid good money for.

This ruling is really a win for consumers in the long run, and Apple too - they have been acting like the Microsoft of the 90s when M$ owned 90% of the desktop market.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: rich in distress
Date: September 10, 2021 03:39PM
So just like Netflix, right?
There must be a difference, though. Maybe licensing media versus code.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: anonymouse1
Date: September 10, 2021 03:48PM
On balance, a good ruling. Should get Apple to do what they should have done a long time ago.

And other than the opening up to alternative payment methods, Epic got nothing. Also good!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: sekker
Date: September 10, 2021 03:55PM
Quote
rich in distress
So just like Netflix, right?
There must be a difference, though. Maybe licensing media versus code.

I also 'buy' my books or audiobooks. Perpetual license etc.

If I choose to switch to a subscription model for content for my iPhone - whether that's Netflix or Adobe apps - that should be MY choice, not something forced on me by Apple.

The default for control should be the owner/buyer, not the 'seller'.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2021 03:56PM by sekker.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: Article Accelerator
Date: September 10, 2021 03:59PM
Quote
Steve G.
(Epic won the case.)

(No, it didn't. One aspect was ruled in favor of Epic.)

[www.politico.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Judge rules Apple is not 'illegal monopolist' in Epic case but IS "Engaging in anticompetitive conduct"
Posted by: Rolando
Date: September 11, 2021 04:39PM
Possible solutions by Apple.

Apple Forks iOS and advises all users that choose iOS15JB that this version will recv security updates "on a separate schedule"

or

Apple has the "Switch to Open Market" version---which downloads and installs Android!

Which would everyone prefer?



San Antonio, TX (in the old city)


"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Eli Weisel

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"I don’t want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." - Billy Graham 1981

"Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise" - Barry Goldwater
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 61
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020