CNBC on Epic vs. Apple (video)

11 Comments

  1. David Emery said:
    Fortt is on-target. I just don’t see the relevance of what a company charges for and makes on its hardware, to the contract terms between Epic and Apple.

    And kinda doubt ‘public sentiment’ has much impact on how a judge rules as a matter of law and fact.

    4
    May 5, 2021
  2. Greg Lippert said:
    The said the trial comes down to the complaint that Apple makes too much money. Is that now against the law? WTF?

    Customers can buy things on multiple platforms and Epic pays the same 30%. So Epic is willing to subsidize consoles because their boxes are loss leaders? OMG.

    If one falls they all must fall. And they shouldn’t.

    Sorry Epic, Apple created a great system – and you get access to. There is a price for that marketplace.

    If there is any justice, you should get tossed out of court – and have to pay Apple’s legal fees – ha!

    3
    May 5, 2021
  3. Fred Stein said:
    Epic has no case. The want to create anti-Apple sentiment by media covering the trial. And/or they hope other developers in all areas will join them.

    Hopefully the judge will stick to just this case and dismiss Epic’s attempts to make this a bigger case.

    In reality both Apple and Epic are each small in the metaverse of gaming. It’s a minor 2 party pricing dispute.

    6
    May 5, 2021
    • Mark Visnic said:
      Both Spotify and Epic are seeking to leverage the current societal focus on wealth disparity and they are using that focus, seen increasingly in Washington and in Brussels, to paint Apple as a bully who has taken disproportionate rents from the “man.” Apple is fighting that societal leverage despite having a business model and strategy that has been broadly wealth creating. They are part of the solution, not the problem. There are many on point examples of unscrupulous, unfair wealth creation. Apple is not one of them.

      9
      May 5, 2021
      • David Emery said:
        That approach might yield benefits in legislatures. It’s unlikely to get much traction in courts. In the meantime, Epic continues to run up big legal bills on top of all the other financial problems it’s having.

        4
        May 5, 2021
      • Fred Stein said:
        Yes, a punch and judy show for the cheap seats.

        2
        May 5, 2021
  4. Mark Visnic said:
    @ Greg

    “If there is any justice, you should get tossed out of court – and have to pay Apple’s legal fees ..”

    Yes. That is the British rule. In this country, the trial lawyer lobby, has been successful in avoiding a rule that would burden purveyors of more frivolous claims.

    3
    May 5, 2021
  5. Ken Cheng said:
    I think Epic’s strategy must have been to embarrass Apple in the court of public opinion and thus get them to settle, with preferential terms for Epic, before going to trial. At trial, it doesn’t seem that Sweeney has a strong legal argument, or even a modest one.

    I’d be more interested in the amicus curiae filings to see if there are stronger arguments than the one Epic is making.

    As mentioned, the bigger case is the EU antitrust one, and Spotify. It certainly seems that Spotify has a friendly ear in Margrethe. She doesn’t have an axe to grind, does she? I fear we’ll end up with another stupid Amazon vs Apple e-book case ruling, where the judge rules narrowly and misses the bigger picture.

    3
    May 5, 2021
    • Jerry Doyle said:
      @Ken Cheng

      “…. I think Epic’s strategy must have been to embarrass Apple in the court of public opinion and thus get them to settle, with preferential terms for Epic, before going to trial. At trial, it doesn’t seem that Sweeney has a strong legal argument, or even a modest one.”

      Agree… I too, have been searching for the Epic beef during this trial and found none. I think you are so right. Epic now is shooting hot air and with its back to the wall can’t back down, forced to run the gauntlet.

      3
      May 5, 2021

Leave a Reply