Tale of two CEOs named Tim: Cook wants to move on while Epic’s Sweeney wants to rehash on appeal

by



[ad_1]

Tale of two CEOs named Tim: Cook wants to move on while Epic's Sweeney wants to rehash on appeal

It’s been a week since Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers delivered her 185-page decision in the Epic v. Apple. As to which company came out victorious, all we can say is that Epic is acting like the loser and Apple is acting like the winner. Injunction prevents Apple from banning developers from directing their customers to in-app payment platforms outside of Apple, but judge rejected everything Epic wanted, including a ruling that would force Apple install the Epic application store on the iPhone.

The judge also stated in particular that “In view of the trial record, the Court cannot finally conclude that Apple is a monopoly under federal or state antitrust laws. ”She also said that“ success is not illegal. ”“ On the other hand, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney was more reluctant to judge’s ruling saying that Epic will “fight,” which he did by appealing the decision.

Tim Cook would rather look to the future while Tim Sweeney wants to rehash everything by appealing

If appealing the ruling means having to relive the court battle, Apple’s CEO would prefer to look to the future. Tim Cook told Apple employees he “looks forward to moving forward” on the ruling in the case. The Verge was able to get a recording of the meeting Cook had with Apple employees and on the recording we hear Cook say, “If you save and remember what the App Store is, the App Store has been a trusted place for users to explore and discover applications. “

The executive added that the App Store was created to provide developers with a great business opportunity. Cook said, “Epic has arrived and basically wanted to be treated in a special way. Our rules are that we treat everyone the same. They repeatedly ask us to treat them differently, we said no and they sued us for 10 different items. “

On these 10 elements, Cook pointed out that the judge had ruled in favor of Apple on nine of them and in favor of Epic on a problem. As the CEO of Apple said: “More importantly, they decided that Apple was not a monopoly, which we have always known. Apple is in an extremely competitive market. He has yet to say whether Apple will appeal the one decision it lost, the anti-leadership ruling which, as we said before, allows developers to steer subscribers to alternative payment platforms. .

With judge saying Apple is not a monopoly, Cook hopes lawmakers agree

Sounding like someone who is willing to put the past behind and the eye away from lawmakers, Cook said, “I think the move will be very good to try to put some discussions to rest on the App Store. In terms of the one we lost, there was a line or two crossed out of a chord, that was the extent of it. I kind of can’t wait to move on now. “

Apple must stop enforcing its anti-management rules by December because the judge ruled they violate California’s unfair competition law. Speaking of laws, the House and Senate must heed the Open App Markets Act. In both houses, the bill was introduced by bipartisan lawmakers. The bill is drafted to “establish fair, clear and enforceable rules to protect competition and strengthen consumer protection in the application market”.

To turn the Open App Markets app into law, the House and Senate will need to pass the bill and reconcile the differences before it is passed by both chambers one last time. If it passes the final vote, it is sent to the president for signature or veto. And if it is the latter, two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate must agree to override the commander-in-chief.

[ad_2]

Source link