Epic Games Inc. affiliated with Apple Inc. went to the end of a judge to curtail sales power on the App Store when the iPhone maker asked to leave the market of 2 million uninterrupted apps.
U.S. Regional Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers heard final sentences Monday from attorneys for blockbuster game developer Fortnite and iPhone maker on a case that threatens to improve the $ 142 billion mobile phone use.
In response to a three-week trial in Oakland, California, the lawyers discussed a number of topics, including the Epic market claim that Apple uses energy and whether Apple’s strong control in its store hurts manufacturers and consumers. Gonzalez Rogers, who is building the case without a court, said he hoped to give a verdict soon but did not specify a date.
After questioning Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook on Friday in his first stint as a witness, the judge on Monday questioned how Apple’s practice of getting 30% Commission from app developers through its App Store has not changed since the store opened in 2008.
“If there was real competition, the numbers would have moved and it didn’t,” said Gonzalez Rogers. “If the key market here includes competitive competition, so far it seems there is nothing forcing Apple to compete with developers.”
Apple’s attorney Daniel Swanson said Apple had changed the color of its equipment even though the size of the committee had not. Games played on Apple’s Apple system can “catch on their own” with the best games on tablets and PCs, Swanson said. “That’s the best competition ever.”
Epic sued Apple in August, after the iPhone maker removed Fortnite from its App Store because the gaming company had made it a point not to continue to pay a 30% fine on customer purchases. The case has attracted widespread interest throughout Silicon Valley, with anyone from Microsoft Corp. to Nvidia Corp. who is fighting the war. In November, Apple cut the cut rate from 30% to 15% for developers earning $ 1 million.
Epic’s favorable decision would have freed Apple to sell in its store and could improve the way millions of software developers distribute apps to device users around the world. It may also attract interest from the U.S. Department of Justice and other international authorities to monitor Apple’s increased potential as a gateway to the digital economy.
Much of the time was spent by lawyers arguing over a long-running dispute: the meaning of the market in which Apple is portrayed as illegal.
Epic has said that Apple uses the mobile app sharing market for iPads and iPhones to benefit from the water from the comments to pay for content within apps. In contrast, Apple claims to be competing in the electronics market which is available on a wide range of devices including video equipment.
“There is no substitute” for access to apps, including the Fortnite app, on iOS except the App Store, said Epic’s lawyer Gary Bornstein. Getting the same app on an Android device or on the console of a video game doesn’t mean Apple’s replacement to allow other apps on iOS, he said.
Swanson also echoed Apple’s view that the market needs to be better defined and incorporate digital experience across all devices. The Fortnite manufacturer’s argument over the use of weapons with “red herring,” Swanson said.
The jury also rejected Epic’s request to convict Apple to allow other software markets near the App Store.
The problem is that it is “the only place in town for sale” and “the only place to find apps out there on the iPhone,” said Epic’s Bornstein.
Apple’s attorney Richard Doren said that if Epic succeeds, it could damage the App Store that the company has carefully built into Google’s “non-compliant” Android that is open in other retail stores.
Gonzalez Rogers also claims that Epic also filed a lawsuit against Google for its Google Play sales laws. Since Epic “accused Google of a real-life example,” telling Apple how it would allow other retailers to address the issue, he asked.
“We’re not arguing that iOS should be the same as Android,” Bornstein said. The epic suit against Google may also cover similarities but mainly follows different principles, he said.
The judge explained that he was just laughing when he told the companies on Friday that he expects a decision by Aug. 13. He explained Monday that the date is the same year since the trial began.