Categories
Mobile Syrup

Epic Games files opening appeal brief, seeks to overturn App Store ruling

Fortnite-maker Epic Games filed its opening briefing to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The company seeks to overturn the previous ruling in its lawsuit against Apple, which determined that the iPhone-makers control over the App Store doesn’t qualify as a monopoly.

As pointed out by The Verge, this marks the first time Epic has laid out its appeal argument at length since the company announced it would appeal the decision in September.

Epic wrote in the filing that the “district court’s factual findings make clear that Apple’s conduct is precisely what the antitrust laws prohibit.”

The company reiterated allegations that Apple requires developers to exclusively use its App Store to distribute apps and use its in-app payment processing platform. It’s worth noting in-app payments are one area where the courts sided with Epic, handing down an injunction against Apple that required it to allow third-party payment systems on iOS apps.

However, Apple was granted a stay on that injunction while the company appeals the ruling. Apple previously called the ruling a “resounding victory.”

In the original ruling handed down in September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determined that Apple was engaging in some anti-competitive practices, but wrote that the “court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws.”

Since then, both companies have appealed the ruling and Epic’s CEO has frequently complained about Apple on Twitter.

Via: The Verge

Categories
Mobile Syrup

Edward Rogers can replace independent board directors, judge rules

Edward Rogers won control of Rogers Communications on November 5th following a B.C. Supreme Court ruling that he could replace five independent directors of the company’s board without a shareholder meeting.

As a reminder, the Rogers family has spent the last several weeks feuding over control of the company. It began with Edward Rogers, son of late company founder Ted Rogers, trying to oust CEO Joe Natale (who learned of the scheme via a butt-dial). The plan failed and the Rogers board voted to remove Edward Rogers as the board chair (he remained on the board as a director).

However, Edward Rogers is also chair of the family trust, which owns 97.5 percent of the company’s voting class A shares. As chair of the trust, Edward Rogers can exercise voting control over the appointment of directors, and he attempted to use that power to replace five independent directors of the board with directors loyal to him through a written resolution. For a time, there were two boards claiming to be legitimate — you can read more about the extremely funny timeline here.

Ultimately, Edward Rogers took the whole debacle to a B.C. court to settle the matter, which came down to whether or not he could legally replace the board with a written resolution. The Globe and Mail reports that Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick ruled that Edward Rogers can — she also granted his application for approval of the change and awarded him legal costs.

It’s worth noting that B.C.’s Business Corporations Act allows board changes to be made using this method. Since the Rogers company is incorporated in B.C., that law applies.

“[Rogers Communications] argues strenuously that Edward is ‘thumbing his nose’ at the proper process and that he improperly seeks to exert rights ‘with the stroke of a pen,’” Justice Fitzpatrick wrote.

“However, as I see it, Edward has closely followed the strictures of the articles, as informed by the act where appropriate. This can only be described as respecting the process, not disregarding it.”

The ruling could be bad news for Natale and other company executives

Edward Rogers responded to the ruling in a statement, saying that “the company requires an effective board that shares a strategic vision for the business, is open, deliberate, consistent in its decision making, independent of management, and that always acts in the best interests of the corporation.”

Loretta Rogers, Martha Rogers and Melinda Rogers-Hixon, who support Natale and opposed Edward Rogers’ move to replace the board, said in a statement they were disappointed and called the ruling a “dangerous precedent.”

“We believe that today’s ruling also ushers in a particularly dangerous time for [Rogers Communications]. The company now faces a very real prospect of management upheaval and a prolonged period of uncertainty, at perhaps the worst possible time,” the statement said.

The decision casts a shadow on the future of Natale and other company executives — The Globe and Mail reported that Natale and his 11-member executive team were prepared to leave if Edward Rogers succeeded in reconstituting the board.

All this has taken place amid Rogers’ ongoing bid to acquire Shaw Communications in a deal valued at $26 billion. Perceived instability at Rogers could be another knock against the company and may foil the acquisition. Some opponents of the merger have petitioned the CRTC to delay an upcoming hearing about the Rogers-Shaw deal because of the family feud. However, with Edward Rogers now officially in control, it’s possible the CRTC will press forward with the hearing (assuming no further disruptions give the commission reason to delay).

Source: The Globe and Mail

Categories
Mobile Syrup

Epic Games will appeal the ruling in its lawsuit against Apple

If you thought the Epic Games vs. Apple saga was over, well, I’ve got some bad news for you.

An Epic spokesperson confirmed to The Verge that the company will appeal the court’s ruling. It’s not hard to see why.

The ruling handed down by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers only had one win for Epic, with Apple winning every other count. Although Apple’s one loss — the company is now legally required to let app developers to point to their own payment methods instead of limiting them to Apple’s in-app purchase system only — was significant, it’s also clearly less than Epic hoped for.

Gonzalez Rogers’ ruling determined that Apple won’t be forced to allow users to sideload apps or allow other app stores on iOS, nor will it need to lower its 30 percent App Store fee.

Moreover, the ruling found that Epic was on the hook for several million dollars (not a huge amount at the scale of these companies, but certainly not nothing), and that Apple wasn’t required to reinstate the Epic Games developer account. In other words, Epic can’t bring Fortnite back to the App Store even if it wanted to (and it clearly doesn’t want to).

In short, none of this comes off as a major win for Epic. Meanwhile, Apple is trumpeting the ruling as a victory, and has yet to acknowledge its new legal obligation to let developers point users to their own payment systems. It’s also worth noting that Apple had (sort of) already agreed to let developers point to other payment options, so to an extent, nothing has changed here.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens with the appeal, but I, unfortunately, don’t see Epic gaining much more ground.

Source: The Verge