Epic Games Files Appeal Against Lawsuit Alleging Apple Monopoly

Video game and software developer, Epic Games dissatisfied with a federal judge’s decision in a law suit accusing Apple of running an illegal monopoly, has appealed the verdict.

Epic games, the owner of video game developers, Chair Entertainment, Psyonix and Mediatonic, as well as cloud-based software developer Cloudgine in a court filing on Sunday said that it would appeal the ruling at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals situated in san Francisco.

It would be recalled that in a 185-page ruling on Friday, Yvonne Gonzalez Roger, a  United States District judge had ordered Apple to discontinue a very important part of the competitive barricade that has come to be associated with its iPhone app store and furthermore dismissed Epic’s allegation that Apple was running a monopoly.

In its filed notice of appeal, the Tim Sweeney founded company posited that it was dissatisfied with the ruling and added that it would appeal the final judgment “and all orders leading to or producing that judgment.”

The ruling may in effect whittle down the famed ‘walled garden’ that Apple was said to have built round the iPhone and its app store, without necessarily dismantling the fiefdom.

The Yvonne Gonzalez ruling somewhat handed Apple a sort of vindication on the monopoly allegation branded against it as she refused to brand it as a monopolistic brand or order it to allow other competing firms to offer apps for iPhones, iPads and iPods.

The two stated point of reference was what irked Epic, who feels the judgment is not an accurate reflection of the reality on ground after filing what it believes would a landmark antitrust suit last year against Apple for allegedly defying an exclusive payment system that funnels 15% to 30% of all in-app digital transactions on iPhones to Apple.

These transactions include Netflix and Spotify subscriptions, the sale of digital imprints like songs, movies and video games virtual tchotchkes. According to Epic, such highly lucrative fee for subscriptions and digital item sales as a price-gauging tactic that would have not happened if other stores were allowed to offer iPhone apps aside Apple.

Despite the district judge leaving the fee structure intact and upheld the company’s right to block other stores from offering apps for its iPhone, part of her ruling raised posers on whether the fees charged by Apple were driving up prices for consumers. She effectively upheld Apple’s stance on every other key point of the case.

She nevertheless affirmed that Apple has under the California law been engaging in unfair competition and thus mandated the company to allow other developers in the U.S insert their payment options links within iPhone apps. The implication of this is that it would be easier for app developers to side-step Apple’s commissions.

Apple on its part, despite making the court decision look like a complete victory said it would appeal the portion of the ruling that allows app developers by-pass Apple’s commissions.