Apple vs Epic Games: Fortnite Developer, iPhone Maker Square Off in Court Battle Over iPhone App Store

 

Apple lawyer Mark Perry defended the firm's "walled garden", arguing that it kept out fraudsters, "pornsters" and hackers.

A high-stakes dispute over whether Apple's sole control of its iPhone app store constituted an unconstitutional monopoly saw Apple and the maker of the well-known video game Fortnite face off in front of three federal appellate judges on Monday. The judges' verdict will be the next in the case. These monopolies frequently suppress competition and raise consumer prices.

Following a lower court decision from September 2021 that essentially upheld Apple's control over the apps it permits on more than 1 billion iPhones globally, Apple and Fortnite creator Epic Games presented oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 75-minute meeting served as an introduction to the appeals court's anticipated decision, which is scheduled to be made sometime in 2019.

The iPhone app store is protected by a so-called "walled garden," which includes a payment system that channels commission income from Apple that ranges from 15% to 30% on purchases of various subscriptions and other digital services through its storefront. The arrangement brings in between $15 billion and $20 billion (approximately Rs. 1,21,900 crore and Rs. 1,62,535 crore) for Apple annually, helping to increase the company's market worth to around $2.4 trillion (roughly Rs. 1,95,04,300 crore).

"Apple made the choice to create the world's safest, most secure, and most private computer device ever, "Perry bragged in front of the judges. Walled gardens keep out hackers, "pornsters," and scammers, he continued."

Perry cited earlier sworn testimony given by Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, who was present during the arguments on Monday. Sweeney confessed having an iPhone himself as a witness in the trial from the previous year, in part because of its security and privacy capabilities.

Two of the three judges, Milan D. Smith Jr. and Michael J. McShane, appeared to be debating whether Epic had done enough to establish its case prior to being questioned.

McShane questioned whether Epic had demonstrated that Apple had made it too difficult and expensive for customers dissatisfied with the iPhone to switch to an Android device, while Smith questioned whether Epic had even been able to successfully define the market in question—a key factor in antitrust cases.

Smith made the observation that Apple appeared to "have made a fairly decent case for 'failure of proof'" in the lower court trial while questioning Epic's Goldstein. McShane said it isn't the reason he doesn't switch to a different type of smartphone, indicating he doesn't trust Epic's claim that Apple has forced customers to keep using their iPhones. McShane said, "I am too lazy to switch." There are several reasons why individuals don't change their phones.

Sidney R. Thomas, the third judge on the court, asked just one question concerning a complicated issue, offering little indication of where he could be leaning.