In its appeal filled at the Ninth Circuit, Apple argues that Epic Games’ lost the case because its accusations were “unprecedented” and “unfounded”.
Last year, Epic Games vs. Apple case came to end with Judge Roger’s ruling that did not find Apple in violation of antitrust law as accused by Epic. Although the judge gave the Cupertino tech giant a clean chit on anticompetitive behavior by charging a 30% commission for in-app purchases, she did find Apple’s anti-steering policy anticompetitive and ordered the company to allow developers to add links to alternative payment methods.
Unhappy with the ruling, Epic Games filed an appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to get the verdict revised. The developer claimed that the court made errors in “finding the Cupertino tech giant in compliance with the Sherman Act, and non-monopolistic in reference to app distribution and in-app purchases on iOS App Store.” Now, Apple has filed its response to Epic Games’ appeal.
Apple says Epic Games appeal is an effort to “change the narrative”
According to the filing, Apple’s defense is centered around proving that Epic Games was unable to provide substantial evidence against the company in the district court and that is why the developer lost the case. And with this appeal, Epic is trying to “change the narrative” by accusing the court of making an error.
Epic built its case on witnesses who “lack[ed] credibility” and were “unreliable,” whose testimony was “wholly lacking in an evidentiary basis,” and who were “willing to stretch the truth in support of [Epic’s] desired outcome.” At trial, its theories were revealed to be “artificial,” “misconceived,” and “litigation driven.” At every turn, Epic “failed to demonstrate,” “failed to convince,” “failed to produce,” “failed to present,” “failed to show,” “failed to persuade,” and “failed to prove” the facts of its case.
Furthermore, the tech argues that the burden of proving its antitrust accusation lies on Epic Games to get the initial verdict reversed.
Epic had the burden to prove, among other things, that the challenged limitations were unreasonable restraints of trade under a framework the parties agreed on before trial began. After a 16-day bench trial, the district court found that Epic had failed to carry its burden of proof on every one of its antitrust claims. That should not surprise: Throughout the history of the App Store, it is undisputed that prices have only gone down, while output has exploded. Those are the hallmarks of competition, not monopolization. To reverse, this Court would have to depart from settled law and ignore the district court’s detailed findings of fact.
Apple also addresses Judge Roger’s order to allow links to alternative payment methods on the App Store. The company states that App Store policies are in compliance with California law therefore, the appeals court held it. It also said that the district court did not have the authority to impose such an injunction.
The injunction exceeds the district court’s authority. Epic failed to prove irreparable injury to itself. Moreover, this is not a class action, and any injunctive relief must be limited to Epic as a matter of both state and federal law.
Click here to read the complete filing.
