Apple Epic Trial

On the ‘frontier’ of antitrust law, a judge recommends a jury make the call in Apple vs. Epic

"When you are taking on the biggest company in the world, when you know it's going to retaliate, you don't lie down in the street and die."

On the ‘frontier’ of antitrust law, a judge recommends a jury make the call in Apple vs. Epic

The hearing teased out the beginning of some of the bigger questions surrounding this case.

Image: Omar Marques/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The legal battle between Apple and Fortnite maker Epic Games continued on Monday in a hearing over whether Fortnite would remain kicked out of the App Store and the fate of Epic Games' Unreal Engine and other app properties as a result.

More than 500 people tried to tune into the hearing, maxing out the number of people who could dial into the Zoom call. Instead, fans of Fortnite violated court rules and started streaming the hearing onto YouTube and Twitch as part of the #FreeFortnite campaign.

But while Epic had its own internet fan base, the game maker hadn't seemed to warm over Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who wasn't "particularly persuaded" by some of Epic's arguments, but also called some of Apple's reactions overblown.

She said she will be issuing a written order, but did not give a timeline on when she would make a decision.

The fight between the two companies centers on Apple's control over its App Store. Epic sued both Apple and Google last month for what it claims are monopolistic practices, like charging a 30% commission from all purchases of digital goods and not allowing developers to use their own payment systems. It also recently launched a new Coalition for App Fairness with other app developers like Spotify and Match Group to help lobby the companies to change their guardrails. Apple's core arguments continued to center around customer privacy and security, and Epic's recent actions were, in its mind, proof that controls are needed.

Epic had defied Apple's rules when it added a hotfix to the app and introduced a way for its game users to buy their own V-bucks and bypass Apple's payment systems. The stunt got Fortnite thrown out of the App Store, and it responded in a well-choreographed plan of immediately filing suit against Apple. (It would repeat the tactic against Google, too.)

"There's plenty of people in the public who consider you guys heroes for what you did, but it's still not honest," Gonzalez Rogers said.

Epic's lawyers argued that it was a necessary step it had to take because it showed that there was consumer demand for an alternative payments system after over half the buyers used Epic's option. (Apple's lawyers argued that the fact that it was only half showed that users still trust Apple's products more.)

Epic also defended its #FreeFortnite marketing campaign, which included a shot-by-shot re-creation of Apple's iconic 1984 ad, as necessary preparation.

"When you are taking on the biggest company in the world, when you know it's going to retaliate, you don't lie down in the street and die," said Epic lawyer Katherine Forrest.

But the hearing also teased out the beginning of some of the bigger questions surrounding this case, like whether we're talking about the iOS App Store market as a whole, like Epic would argue, or whether this should be compared to the video game market as an industry instead.

"This particular market has frequently had walled gardens, and it's hard to ignore the economics of the industry, which is what you're asking me to do," Gonzalez Rogers said.

There's also the question of when exactly Apple became a monopoly as Epic argues it now is. One of Apple's defenses is that it's always charged the 30% rate and, if anything, has only lowered that rate for companies offering digital subscription products. The 30% is also in line with other markets like Google's, which doubled down on its right to take a 30% cut and announced Monday that it would soon force companies like Netflix and Spotify into using its own payment systems.

"At what point in time did Apple become a monopolist?" asked Gonzalez Rogers.

It's a question that may end up in the hands of a jury to figure out instead. In the end, the judge recommended that the two sides proceed to a jury trial since she assumed whoever the losing party is will file an appeal and that the appellate court looks more favorably on jury verdicts. (This could have been in reference to the Qualcomm verdict, which was a bench decision overturned by the courts in August). "I know I'm just a stepping stone for all of you," she said.

Jury trial or not, Gonzalez Rogers signaled that it's likely that the Apple vs. Epic case would start next summer and could have a July 2021 trial date.

"As we've noted, these are important cases and they're on the frontier of antitrust law. You might as well find out what the people really think and want," she said.

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Workplace

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.

Climate

The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Policy

White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins