Search results

True, but it's also a win for Apple on the most serious charge of monopolistic behavior. For Epic, failing to get Apple declared a monopoly is very much "winning the battle but losing the war".

Because the "mobile gaming is a distinct entity from PC gaming" argument is ultimately a legal red herring which is used to shore up the superficially parallel argument that "iOS gaming is a distinct entity from mobile gaming". This allows Epic to argue that iOS is its own separate market, a...

I would also argue that the political context is *extremely* relevant here: Apple is an industry-leading American company which is being attacked in blatant bad faith by a Chinese-controlled competitor. Whose interests does that serve? (Epic's attack on Valve, and more broadly its attempts to...

I think Epic has a reasonable argument on this particular point, however I absolutely side with Apple on the overall merits of the case. Apple is a specialized niche product which does not constitute a "monopoly" by any measure other than the patently absurd one of saying that Apple is a market...

To the extent that anyone can even stay awake for this, Epic's currently trying to argue that PC and mobile versions of the same game aren't actually the same game, therefore mobile games are a single market space unto themselves as opposed to being part of the larger video game ecosystem. This...