Apple beats developers in search of $ 200 billion for ‘tyrannical greed’ of the App Store

Por Lavoragine @delavoragine

A judge overseeing a group of developers seeking Apple's $ 200 billion app store lawsuit ruled, inflicting defeat on developers battling what they called Apple's "tyrannical greed" .

In a 34-page ruling, Judge Edward Chen dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Apple had used monopoly power to exclude apps it didn't like from the App Store, for the benefit of its own. " institutional partners ". Chen ruled that the developers had failed to identify a market in which Apple exercises monopoly control.

Specifically, the developers have tried to define the market as both the "smartphone market" as a whole and the "iOS institutional application market". Five other markets were also cited as "downstream", according to a report by Courthouse news Thursday, but the judge ruled that the classifications "all failed to pass the rally" and were unclear.

"The plaintiffs fail to define the area of ​​effective competition in which they compete," Chen wrote in his decision. "They are not smartphone makers. Nor do they provide any other basis for the court to conclude that the US smartphone market is the domain of effective competition" for the plaintiffs' claims. "

Further, the judge said the markets cited by the developers were "single brand markets" where Apple was "inherently and necessarily" the only participant.

The developer lawyer pledged to continue to fight, calling the decision "puzzling." An appeal is awaited.

Any call would likely take years. The success of future appeals will likely require numerous antitrust law changes for Sherman's antitrust laws to apply in this case, as well as an appeal victory in the Epic v Apple case - neither seems likely to succeed. happen. short term.

The long-standing legal dispute between Apple and the developer of "Coronavirus Reporter" came to a head in early July 2021. The developer withdrew his antitrust case he had filed earlier and filed it as a class action suit alongside other developers.

"Coronavirus Reporter" and a second company, Calid Inc, have joined forces to represent "themselves and everyone else in the same situation."

The case attempted to draw comparisons to Apple and the decades-long successful anti-competitive case against Microsoft and the browser grouping.

"Apple, in breathtaking comparison, has secured its position as the richest company in the world by committing all of these listed crimes under the guise of popularity and commitment to quality," the combined record reads. "There is no doubt that Tim Cook sought to make up for the tragic loss of Steve Jobs - and his gift for innovation - by seeking reckless profits in the wake of Apple's success with the iPhone."

These two developers wanted to redefine the Sherman Act to make the App Store responsible for not having made known to all iPhone users certain developers of free applications. In the filing, the developers said free apps are "a major component of the ecosystem and a significant source of lost" person-years of work.

The developer of "Coronavirus Reporter" reiterated its previous complaints that Apple unfairly blocked its COVID app. Apple said the developer's complaints about it were "cavalier."

Apple blocked the app citing the developers' insufficient medical history. "Coronavirus Reporter" notes that it has a NASA chief cardiologist on its team, and now believes Apple has chosen to promote another free app in its stead.

"About a month after rejecting [our] app, Apple allowed several employees at a London University Hospital to distribute a COVID app on the App Store that worked almost the same as Coronavirus Reporter, "the file continued." This competing app got the so-called prime mover advantage and is currently used by five million people per day. "

The lawsuit claimed at least $ 90 million in damages for each of the estimated 500 apps that were said to have been "deleted or rejected." The total damages claimed "approach $ 200 billion when ten years of developer fees of $ 99 are factored in."

The lawsuit also wanted the creation of an "independent and impartial App Court" to prevent anti-competitive behavior.

Read on AppleInsider