Although it has been out of the media spotlight for a few months now, the confrontation between Epic Games and Apple remains very active in the legal and communication and public relations departments of both companies. It has already rained a lot since September of last year, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in the first instance. And it is that what for ordinary mortals would mean the end of the judicial process, in this case it was evident that it was only the first assault.
We already told you, a week after the ruling was handed down, that neither company was fully satisfied with the result and that, therefore, this was only the beginning. And indeed, the appeals and the answers to them began to circulate with the speed of a Formula-1 single-seater. Several months have passed since then but nothing has changed, and the last to give a pao about it has been Epic Games, which has submitted a letter in response to the one submitted by Apple last March.
In it, Apple stated the following:
«Epic Games built its case on witnesses who ‘lacked credibility’ and were ‘unreliable’, whose testimony was ‘totally without evidentiary basis’, and who were ‘willing to stretch the truth in support of the desired outcome. [por Epic]’. At trial, his theories were revealed to be ‘artificial’, ‘misconceived’ and ‘driven by litigation’. Throughout, Epic Games ‘did not demonstrate’, ‘did not persuade’, ‘did not produce’, ‘did not present’, ‘did not show’, ‘did not persuade’ and ‘did not prove’ the facts of its case.»
And this has been Epic’s response:
«Apple also claims that the fix Epic is requesting will jeopardize the security of the iPhone. But that is false. The operating system that Apple uses on its Mac computers (“macO”) does not include the contested restrictions found in the iPhone operating system (“iOS”), and Apple consistently promotes the security of the Mac.
Apple also allows multiple alternative payment solutions in the App Store for apps that sell physical products, confirming that the requirement to use Apple’s in-app payment solution, IAP, for digital products does not serve any pro-competitive purpose. . If Epic prevails, the App Store would not be dismantled. No customer would be required to use any of the things Apple complains about: an alternative app store, direct downloads for app distribution, or an alternative payment solution. The difference is that Apple would have to compete for its customers.»
We find, in the argument of Epic Games, a point that can be key to defend your positionand it is that the arrival of the hypothetical alternatives to iOS would not deprive users of continuing to use the app store and the Apple payment platform, so that users could choose to maintain that protection and that security so defended by Apple .
With information from MacRumors
