After more than a year of petitions and oncoming lawsuits, the Epic Games Antimonopoly Antimonopoly Apple finally came to an end, since the judge made a decision in favor of Apple by 9 out of 10 points, but in fact gave Epic Games and other developers what they fought for all the time, the ability to use alternative methods of payment in their applications.
"A nationwide trial should prescribe Apple to prohibit developers with their applications and their metadata buttons, external links or other calls to the action that direct customers to Buying mechanisms in addition to IAP.
In addition, Apple cannot prohibit applicants to communicate with their users using the contact information voluntarily provided during the registration of the account.
according to the judge , he could not conclude that Apple practiced a monopoly in accordance with the current laws and on the basis of EPIC legal arguments. However, he agreed that Apple is conducting an anti -competitive policy in accordance with the laws of California. On the other hand, he also called the Epic Games motives in filing an antimonopoly claim and found EPIC guilty of violating the contract when they played a direct payment button vibrantly.
"The mobile games market is estimated at $ 100 billion," said referee. "The market size explains why Epic Games has taken this action. After penetrating all other video games, the mobile game market was the following purpose of Epic Games, and they consider Apple as an obstacle. "
Epic Games will also be required to pay compensation and compensation for damage that they agreed to pay Apple if Violation of the oncoming lawsuit under the contract will be forced.
"This test showed that" large technologies "cover many markets, including what is appropriate, suberpishes for mobile games. This profitable market worth $ 100 billion was not fully mastered and matured for economic operation. As a large player in a wider industry of video games, Epic Games filed a lawsuit to challenge Apple control over access to a significant part of this subrynus for mobile games transactions. Ultimately, Epic Games was overdoed. As a result, the trial protocol was not so detailed in relation to antimonopoly behavior in the corresponding market, as it could be.
Thus, and in general, the court does not believe that Apple is Antimonopoly Monopolist on the subrynus of mobile gaming transactions. However, he found that Apple's behavior to ensure compliance with management restrictions is anti -competitive. The tool to eliminate these provisions is suitable. This balanced means of legal protection will increase competition, increase transparency, expand consumer choice and information, while preserving the IOS ecosystem from Apple, which has a competitive excuse. "
Here is Apple's answer to Resolution:
"Today, the court confirmed what we knew from the very beginning: the App Store does not violate the antimonopoly legislation. The court admitted that "success is not illegal." Apple is faced with rigid competition in each segment in which we are doing business, and we believe that customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world. We still strive to ensure that the App Store is a safe and reliable market that supports the prosperous community of developers and more than 2.1 million jobs in the United States, and where the rules apply equally to everyone. "
General The director of Epic Games also made a statement in the response, which says: "Today's decision is not a victory for developers or consumers. Epic is fighting for honest competition among the methods of payment within applications and apps of applications for a billion consumers. Fortnite will return to iOS App Store, where EPIC will be able to offer intra -game payments in conditions of honest competition with Apple intra -game payments, transmitting saving to consumers. "
If you have time, you can familiarize yourself with complete information on 185 pages here . Meanwhile, the Epic Games trial against Google has not yet begun, so wait for another year of the Judicial Drama of "Big Technologies".