{"id":30314,"date":"2020-10-01T15:25:29","date_gmt":"2020-10-01T19:25:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=30314"},"modified":"2021-06-18T07:04:22","modified_gmt":"2021-06-18T11:04:22","slug":"epic-v-apple-hearing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2020\/10\/01\/epic-v-apple-hearing\/","title":{"rendered":"Epic v. Apple Hearing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Florian Mueller<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The Epic Games v. Apple preliminary injunction hearing took place this morning (Pacific Time) before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Toward the end of the hearing, Judge Gonzalez Rogers strongly recommended putting the factual questions here (and she categorized market definition as a question of fact as well) before a jury, given that appeals courts--in her observation--don’t afford district court judges much deference for their factual determinations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Dan Moren<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Patrick McGee, a reporter for the Financial Times, live-tweeted yesterday’s hearing for the Epic v. Apple case in a lengthy thread<\/a> that’s well worth reading if you’re interested in the case.<\/p>\n

Highlights have been pulled out elsewhere, including from Kyle Orland at Ars Technica<\/a>, but the upshot seems to be that while solid arguments were made on both sides, Epic definitely took the brunt of the judge’s attention yesterday.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There’s a video here<\/a>. Transcripts are here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

James Vincent<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\nJudge [Rogers] expressed skepticism about Epic’s arguments, particularly its claim that it did not pose a security threat to Apple because it is a well-established company and partner.<\/p>\n

“You did something, you lied about it by omission, by not being forthcoming. That’s the security issue. That’s the security issue!”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Epic certainly deceived Apple, but what’s the security issue? It’s been known since the beginning of the App Store that the review process can’t catch feature flags. That’s the real security issue. But Epic has no reason to use them to harm its own customers.<\/p>\n\n

According to CNN, Judge Rogers said she was “not particularly persuaded” by Epic’s argument that Apple has bundled its App Store and in-app payment system together in violation of antitrust law. The judge also said she did not necessarily agree with Epic that Apple has harmed its ability to distribute Fortnite through its control of the App Store.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

She seems to take the angle I’ve taken all along: Apple runs iOS as an app console, and it doesn’t hold water for Epic to argue that the Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch game platforms are fine, but Apple’s app platform is not.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Juli Clover<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple and Epic Games do not want to have a jury trial in their ongoing legal dispute over Fortnite and Apple’s App Store policies, according to a filing submitted to the Northern California court handling the case today.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Florian Mueller<\/a>:<\/p>\n

It’s highly speculative why this surprising choice was made. While Apple’s in-house litigation department has hugely more experience with high-stakes commercial disputes than Epic, outside counsel for both parties is well-matched. It’s just a gut feeling, but this looks like one of the cases in which both parties believe very strongly they’re going to win--not the kind of case where a plaintiff has that strong belief but the defendant is trying a long shot and stalling, or where a plaintiff attempts a crapshoot (which often happens in patent cases).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n