.jpg?width=1200&height=630&fit=crop&enable=upscale&auto=webp)
Google uses Apple’s core arguments to counter-sued Epic
In the ongoing antitrust lawsuit between the two companies, Google fought back against Epic. This counterclaimIt must be seen in the context of Epic’s other major legal battles (especially against Apple) that revolves around the Freedom Plan, which is a 2020 plan in which Epic secretly added alternatives to Fortnite’s Android and iOS versions Payment methods, and then sued Google and Apple for launching a public relations campaign designed to get the public on their side.
Epic said that in essence, these large platform holders are monopolies, so they should be forced to allow developers to use their own payment systems in applications.
The first verdict in the Epic vs Apple case is complicated and is currently being appealed. Essentially, the court rejected all of Epic’s arguments, except for one rather important argument: Apple should allow developers to link to alternative methods of in-app payment. This is what Apple is attracted to, and Epic is attracting everything else, and the solution seems to have a long way to go. Anyway, what does the word button mean?
Google’s starter is much stronger than Apple because it did not run a closed system like iOS in the first place: Android users or developers are not forced to use Google Play to download or distribute applications (the payment mechanism to bypass Google Pay is this An important part of a lawsuit). Google’s lawyers argued that Android “provides more openness and choice for app developers and smartphone consumers than any other major competitor.”
The first part of the legal document involved some very formulaic denials of Epic’s claims. After listing a long list of sentences in this format—“Google denies the allegations in paragraph 274”—Google’s lawyers listed their claims. The nine defenses based on it challenged Epic’s claims. Many of these overlap with Apple’s defenses against Epic, which may not be surprising, and Epic’s so-called maliciousness is again placed first, especially regarding its signing of the Developer Agreement (DDA) to put Fortnite on Google Play:
“Not satisfied with those huge [Android] Profit, it signed a legal agreement with Google, and it never intended to comply, deceive Google and conceal its true intentions, in order to provoke the legal and public relations confrontation that continues to this day. “
This confrontation is a free plan. Google says that Epic seeks two things: “A systemic change will bring huge monetary gains and wealth”, calm the surprise, and challenge “Apple and Google’s policies and practices. These policies and The practice hinders Mr. Sweeney’s view of the coming meta-universe.”
Regarding the future direction of Fortnite, here is an interesting fact about the metaverse concept (which also appears in the Apple suite): “Internally, Epic also hopes to revitalize and revitalize Fortnite by adjusting its business, allowing players to develop Creators can create new content and Epic can share most of the profits with these creators.” Whether this refers to the reasonable and common practice that now allows creators to profit from cosmetics, or something more ambitious, it remains to be seen: Fortnite Roblox, one of the important competitors, will be very interested to know.
Back to the question at hand, Google stated that “Epic has no intention of actually complying with its agreement with Google […] According to Epic’s own documents, the plan is simple:[i]f We were rejected because we only provided Epic’s payment solutions. The battle begins. It will be fun! ‘”
The decision to “flip the switch” and find a fight adds more details about what Epic thinks will happen: At the board meeting, “Epic’s co-founder Mark Lane predicted that’Apple and Google have a more than 50% chance that we The moment they do this, the game is immediately removed from their store,” COO Daniel Vogel predicted, “Google and Apple will immediately take down the build for new players.”
We also learned that Tim Sweeney of Epic was basically bragging about litigation in the tech world: on August 5, 2020, he announced to Microsoft via email that “Epic has some plans for August…” and later added Saying that they will “enjoy the upcoming firework show.” Sweeney admitted in Epic v. Apple’s testimony that the emails were referring to the launch of the Freedom Project.
Even more striking than this is the extent to which Epic is willing to go: Knowing that it is basically a surprise attack on Apple and Google, the company is ready to “crack” its own fixes through internal attempts.
The lawsuit reads: “Professional engineers and internal information security teams tried to crack the code to ensure that Google (and Apple) could not’reveal its intent’ when submitting a patch.” “Epic also uses analysis to determine that it will be received once triggered. The number of players in the patch.”
Google added that in addition to cracking down on Google and violating its developer agreement, Epic also tried to fool users and portray it as a big bad guy. “After Google removed Fortnite from Google Play, Epic sued Google on the same day that it violated the DDA. Epic also started a campaign to combat negative consumer reactions that Epic knew was imminent due to its actions. For example, Epic knew Users correctly see Epic as a greedy behavior, so Epic tells users “[w]When you choose to use Epic to pay directly, you can save up to 20% because Epic will pass on the savings in payment processing to you. Epic further told consumers that if Google reduces service fees, Epic will pass on these cost reductions to users. These statements are intended to discredit and harm Google, while distracting attention from Epic’s violations. “
Google wants a jury trial and hopes to delete Fortnite and terminate Epic’s developer account in accordance with the terms of the confirmed developer agreement. Regarding the agreement, Google hopes that Epic will be found responsible for breach of contract and breach of good faith. It hopes that the court will declare that Epic has unfairly profited from its actions and return the money to Google. Of course, “compensatory damages, punitive damages, Attorney’s fees and interest.” The kicker is a permanent ban on Epic’s attempts to use external payment methods to try any such content. This mainly follows Apple’s script, which has been proven successful in court.
In the beginning, Google was always in a slightly better position than Apple, and the exact nature of the Android ecosystem may be in its favor. Epic’s deliberate violation of its agreement with Google is almost uncontroversial: hell, it is preparing its own Fortnite patch. Of course, the court will rule, and the argument here is much bigger than the individual bad behavior: who knows, 20 years from now, people might think that Epic is a hero fighting for developer rights.
But one thing is certain: Project Liberty, a public relations campaign launched in 1984 for “We the People”, was never a good idea for a company with a valuation of just under $30 billion. Epic’s own prediction—it will strive to gain sympathy for its cause—seems prescient. So far, this has been proven correct in court, and it is true in front of most of the public.