Latest News U.S. Supreme Court Denies Appeals by Apple and Apple Epic In Antitrust Case -
On January 16, U.S. Supreme Court denied the requests for hearing appeals filed by Apple along with Epic Games concerning the antitrust suit. Epic started in 2020. Apple for 2020. Reuters reported.
In the year 2021 U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2021, rejected the majority of Epic's claims against Apple however, she decided against Epic's policy on those who transfer customers away from Apple's platforms in order to purchase digital products. In the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with much of Judge Rogers 2021 ruling.
What does Apple Think? Apple responds
According to Associated Press reported that this announcement comes as a consequence of an order that allows developers to choose between selecting several payment options. Apple has also been signed on to court documents on January 16th that outlined the strategy it will follow to follow these rules and keep control over most of its expenditures.
AP has reported that the Apple court documents reveal they are planning to:
- Developers can create hyperlinks on other websites. But, Apple charges 12%-27 percentage commissions for transactions that are conducted via hyperlinks to other websites.
- Inform consumers by displaying the "scare screen" each time they open an advertisement that leads them to a different payment option to notify them that Apple is not responsible to purchase transactions in the sense of security or privacy.
- Institute to be approved of a process which AP says is "potentially complicated" before allowing externally-pointing hyperlinks or buttons to display in iPhone or iPad applications. Apple's "effort to reduce fraudulent activity or fraud, and also inaccurate or false information."
How do you feel about Epic Games' Response? Epic Games are Responding
AP stated that the story describing the plans "provoked allegations that Apple isn't acting with integrity and established the right conditions for future legal challenges," apparently quoting Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney's X (formerly also known as Twitter) blog entry where he said "Apple has filed a compliance not in good trust' agreement with respect with the judge's decision."
Sweeney also provided a detailed description of "glaring problems we've found in the past," concluding with " Epic intends to contest Apple's compliance program in the event of in bad faith, through District Court" as and attaching a photo of a "scare image" Apple has included in the Developer Support Update on the purchase links that are out of the control of Apple.
The day before, Sweeney had posted mixed views, pointing out that it was "unpleasant" to contemplate that was that this Supreme Court choosing not to take appeals in this instance was "A terrible outcome for all developers" and also stating " developers can begin taking advantage of their rights as judges in court to inform US consumers about lower rates on the internet."
More Epic Games v. Apple Case Developments
On January 17th on the 17th of January Reuters announced that Apple was also requesting the judge to request for Epic Games pay them over $73 million in legal expenses and related expenses. Reuters states that Apple's demand was motivated due to "a lower court's decision that determined that Epic Games violated a developer agreement signed by them in 2010." In the court's ruling "Epic was required to reimburse charges that were related to the loss the legal and other costs in addition to any other fees resulting from the violation."
Similar to Epic Vs. Apple and Epic vs. Google:
HTML1 is about
The article was first published on this site
The article was posted on this website
The article was published on this site
Article was first seen on here