/
Navigation
C
Chronicles
Browse all articles
C
E
Explore
Semantic exploration
E
R
Research
Entity momentum
R
N
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
N
~
Story Arc
Topic evolution
S
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
D
P
Posts
Analysis & commentary
P
Browse
@
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
?
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
!
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
+
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
*
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
vs
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
/\
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
!!
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Nav: C E R N
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

A US appeals court panel appeared skeptical of Google's bid to overturn a 2023 jury verdict that declared the Play Store an illegal monopoly in the Epic case

Judges Tell Search Giant Apple Case Doesn't Apply X: Vidushi Dyall / @vidushi_law : According to Google, “Epic sought a do-over” by trying to get a different result against a different adversary, and Epic wasn't allowed to seek outcomes inconsistent with 🍎 case about mobile gaming transactions. Lee Hepner / @leehepner : Epic v Google appeal is under submission. I expect 9C will rule within a few months. I predict the lower court's order will be upheld. There's enough to distinguish Apple, uphold the jury trial, and defer to the lower court's discretion on the remedy. Vidushi Dyall / @vidushi_law : G agreed but noted that 70% of A app store transactions are gaming, and 80% of G's are gaming transactions. Epic never disputed that both cases are about gaming transactions, and these transactions are the same in both cases. Vidushi Dyall / @vidushi_law : Google opened by highlighting that everyone agrees that G and Apple vigorously compete and that Epic lost in its effort to avoid this reality when the district court in Epic v. Apple found that G and 🍎 were in same area of effective competition: mobile gaming transactions. Vidushi Dyall / @vidushi_law : G argued that on the aftermarket question, which is defined as demand for the product is entirely derived from the purchase of another product, the district court chose “form over substance"/a “magic word approach” by failing to instruct the jury bc they hadn't heard those exact Vidushi Dyall / @vidushi_law : Epic's complaints tried to silo G and 🍎's operating systems into 2 different markets. The Epic v. Apple court found that this siloing was not valid and that 🍎's main competitor is G (and vice versa). Vidushi Dyall / @vidushi_law : On rebuttal, G countered the DOJ, stating that “remedies must restore competition,” instead arguing that “remedies must undo consequences,” noting that the DOJ is trying to undo established case law that requires a showing of a causal connection between conduct and harm. Vidushi Dyall / @vidushi_law : The panel of judges chimed in to note the differences between 🍎 and G, with Judge Forrest noting that the court takes every case on its facts and there are some clear factual differences b/t the “🍎 world and G world.” Forums: r/Android : Google Bid to Overturn Epic App Win Eyed Skeptically by Judges

Bloomberg