![]() ![]() McShane - seemed to be struggling with whether Epic had done enough to prove its case in the first place.Īt various times, Smith wondered whether Epic had even been able to successfully define the market in question - a key factor in antitrust cases - while McShane asked whether Epic had proven that Apple had made it too cumbersome and expensive for consumers unhappy with the iPhone to switch to an Android device. As a witness in last year’s trial, Sweeney acknowledged that he owns an iPhone himself, partly because of its security and privacy features.ĭuring their questioning, two of the three judges - Milan D. ![]() Perry pointed to previous sworn testimony provided by Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, who attended Monday’s arguments. He added: “What is kept out by walled gardens is fraudsters, ‘pornsters’ and hackers.” “Apple made the decision to make this the safest, the most secure, the most private computing device that the world has ever known,” Perry boasted to the three judges. He also described the barrier as a way for the iPhone to distinguish itself from devices running on Google’s Android software, which isn’t as restrictive and is licensed to a wide range of manufacturers. “The only thing that is kept out by Apple’s walled garden is competitors,” Goldstein said.Īpple lawyer Mark Perry defended that walled garden as an indispensable feature prized by consumers who want the best protection available for their personal information. The setup generates an estimated $15 billion to $20 billion for Apple every year, which has helped lift its market value to nearly $2.4 trillion.Įpic lawyer Thomas Goldstein depicted Apple’s walled garden as a pretext for increasing its profits at the expense of the companies making the apps that have helped make iPhones so popular. The 75-minute session was a prelude to an expected ruling by the appeals court, likely to be issued sometime next year.Ī so-called “walled garden” protecting the iPhone app store includes a payment system that funnels Apple commission revenue ranging from 15% to 30% on the purchases of some subscriptions and other digital services through its storefront. The oral arguments laid out in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by lawyers from Apple and Fortnite maker Epic Games follow a September 2021 lower court ruling that largely preserved Apple’s sway over the apps it allows on more than 1 billion iPhones worldwide.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |