Smith said competition-law injunctions often have "incidental benefits to non-parties." That's because "antitrust law protects competition, not individual market participants," the judge wrote.Īpple seemed to make arguments that "challenge an imagined panel opinion on an imagined record," Smith wrote.Įpic chief executive Tim Sweeney in a tweet on Monday expressed disappointment that the injunction against Apple would remain paused for now. Epic's role as a games distributor, Smith said, justified a broad-reaching injunction. Apple also challenged the scope of the 9th Circuit's injunction, saying it should apply only to Epic and its subsidiaries and not nationally to all developers.īut Apple's argument "overlooks aspects of the panel opinion's analysis that are inconvenient to its position," Smith wrote. In its filing, Apple questioned Epic's legal "standing" to bring the antitrust suit in the first place.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |