US Supreme Court Snubs Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle

Re:US Supreme Court Snubs Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle by cubefox on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @11:37AM (#39015263)

> The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld much of Rogers' decision in 2023, finding that Epic had "failed to prove the existence of substantially less restrictive alternatives" to Apple's system.

What does this mean? Does Apple even allow any alternatives?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court Snubs Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle by granzymes on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @11:46AM (#39015409)

It means that Epic failed to identify a better way for Apple to collect its 30%/15% fee than mandating developers use its in-app purchase system.

Epic’s cert petition at the Supreme Court focused on the argument that it’s unfair that their identified solution needed to be equally or less burdensome, but the Supreme Court turned them away.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court Snubs Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle by cubefox on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @12:09PM (#39015732)

To be clear, equally or less burdensome for whom?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court Snubs Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle by granzymes on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @12:10PM (#39015755)

For Apple, since the court found that they have a right to collect their fee.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court Snubs Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle by cubefox on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @07:08PM (#39021110)

Okay, then it's clear why Epic couldn't do anything.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:US Supreme Court Snubs Apple-Epic Games Legal Battle by kelnos on Tuesday January 16, 2024 @05:31PM (#39020066)

I assume they mean that you can use an Android phone, instead.

Which I think is preposterous, but... there we are.

[ Parent | on HN ]