After spending days presenting reams of dueling financial evaluation and documentary proof, the 2 sides landed on Monday the place they started: arguing over how Decide Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ought to interpret Apple’s position in a sprawling digital financial system. The end result of that evaluation may reshape how digital app shops work or uphold Apple’s prime place in its app ecosystem.
In a matter of weeks, Gonzalez Rogers is about to determine whether or not Apple is an agile innovator that reaped simply rewards for constructing a preferred app enterprise, or whether it is, as Epic alleges, a monopolist that makes use of its management over the iOS App Retailer to illegally hurt competitors, prohibit innovation and hold costs excessive.
On Monday, Epic pleaded with Gonzalez Rogers for an order banning Apple from implementing a few of its insurance policies and forcing Apple to permit third-party app shops to compete with its personal proprietary app retailer. Epic additionally accused Apple of attempting to persuade the decide it’s a “benevolent overlord” of the iOS ecosystem that must be allowed to proceed to function with out competitors “as a result of it is labored out okay up to now.”
“That’s not a protection underneath the antitrust legal guidelines,” Epic’s lawyer mentioned. (When Gonzalez Rogers identified that Apple could not be “benevolent” whereas additionally being anti-competitive, Epic’s lawyer disagreed and mentioned Apple was solely “pretending to be a benevolent overlord” and wanted to be genuinely examined in opposition to opponents.)
In contrast, Apple has urged Gonzalez Rogers to contemplate the corporate’s App Retailer as a part of a vibrant, aggressive marketplace for online game gross sales. A procession of outstanding executives, culminating with Prepare dinner on Friday, argued that Apple’s platform guidelines defend customers and supply safety and privateness. And on Monday, its attorneys mentioned that giving Epic what it desires can be unjustified and unprecedented.
Gonzalez Rogers supplied vital inquiries to either side. She challenged Apple on its fee construction, declaring that “if there was actual competitors, that quantity would transfer and it hasn’t.” Apple argued later that it has lowered commissions a number of occasions, comparable to by creating a reduction for small companies.
At sure factors, the decide implied she was open to discovering that Apple had damaged the legislation, musing hypothetically about potential restrictions she may impose on Apple underneath California legislation, or contemplating an evaluation that might permit for a discovering of anticompetitive conduct by Apple with out deciding that it holds a monopoly.
She additionally pushed arduous in opposition to Epic on Monday, suggesting that what the corporate was asking her to do was to “change the enterprise mannequin” of Apple. She challenged Epic’s lawyer, Gary Bornstein, to quote an instance of a case that had led to that sort of final result involving personal litigants. The attorneys briefly debated the landmark Microsoft antitrust case of the Nineteen Nineties, the US authorities’s latest case in opposition to Qualcomm and a pending Supreme Courtroom case earlier than finally rejecting them as applicable comparisons.
“You have not instructed me a single antitrust case the place the form of reduction you might be requesting has been granted by a court docket when a personal plaintiff is available in,” she mentioned. “It’s a fairly vital step that courts have not finished.” (Bornstein admitted he didn’t have an ideal analogy on ha
nd and that the decide faces “a fairly distinctive state of affairs.”)
By expressing reservations about precedent, Gonzalez Rogers opened the door to arguments by Apple that giving into Epic’s requests would characterize a severe break from historical past.
“If that’s scary for Apple’s iOS prospects … and for this court docket, that’s merely a consequence of what Epic is asking for,” mentioned Apple’s lawyer, Richard Doren. In distinction, Epic claimed that Apple is making an attempt to “scare the court docket.”
However at different occasions, Gonzalez Rogers appeared to relish her position on the reducing fringe of the legislation.
“They do not name us the Wild West for nothing,” she joked.