“In considering
direct evidence of monopoly power, Epic Games has failed to demonstrate that there is a necessary restriction in the output of the relevant product—here,
mobile game transactions*.” So if I understand this correctly, Epic tried to argue that Apple had a monopoly on app distribution and IAP, but the court found that this was not the relevant market (Apple's proposed market was also deemed unsatisfactory). Regarding the Apple Developer License Agreement the court states “Given this distinction, a business may set conditions for dealing unilaterally and refuse to deal with anyone who does not meet those conditions.” So Apple is allowed to set reasonable restrictions for developers to enter their app store. The court then wants Epic “To demonstrate anticompetitive effects on
the two-sided [mobile gaming] market as a whole,” plaintiff must prove that Apple’s app distribution provisions increased the cost of mobile gaming transactions “above a competitive level, reduced the number of [mobile gaming] transactions, or otherwise stifled competition in the [mobile gaming] market.” It concludes that Apple has set the 30% rate by coincidence in 2008. It also states that “Having carefully considering the evidence, the Court finds that Apple’s app distribution restrictions do have
some anticompetitive effects.”
The court concludes “Thus, and in summary, the Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist
in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions.”
"Ultimately, Epic Games overreached. As a consequence, the trial record was not as fulsome with respect to antitrust conduct in the relevant market as it could have been."
Again, correct me if I am wrong, as that I may have overlook it, but so as I understand it, the court has decided that Epic (and Apple) argued for the wrong market. And when looking at app distribution in the gaming market, Epic has failed to convince the court, because it had to prove that the DPLA was unreasonable (which it is not), and that it would raise the cost for transactions (which it does not, because Apple has had these set overall, and a similar rate exists on Android). It did, in my reading, not consider whether the App Store in itself consituted a monopoly, though.
---
* The difference is that it considers the transactions of games, which are not tied to iOS or Apple Pay per se. I haven't looked at this, but I
assume that this is why the court decided that it was unreasonable from Apple to not allow links etc. to the payment in a browser.
---
The case:
https://cand.uscourts.gov/wp-conten...ic-v.-Apple-20-cv-05640-YGR-Dkt-812-Order.pdf