San Francisco (AP)-Google went to the Court of Appeal on Monday in an attempt to persuade a committee from three judges to cancel the jury’s ruling to announce its Android smartphone application store. Epic Games, the video game maker, which brought the case that claims that the Google Play Store offends its abuse for its experience on the Android app, and faced arguments that determine the reason for the confirmation of both the ruling and punishment to enhance more innovation and low prices.
In an approximately hour presentation in the San Francisco Appeals Court, Google Jessica Ellithor explained the reason for the company’s belief. The judge oversees a month’s trial in 2023 Incorrectly allowed the market in its case differently from what it was in a similar experience to combat monopoly on Apple’s anti -monopoly experience in 2021.
Elsworth also confirmed that the jury was not supposed to decide the trial in the first place because Google practiced its approval for this process and demanded the case by the judge instead, as well as the trial by Apple.
EPIC, the famous Fortnite video game maker, presented separate anti -monopoly cases against Apple and Google on the same day in August 2020 and reached its climax with significantly different results. Unlike the jury in the Google trial in San Francisco, the American boycott judge, iPhone Gonzalez Rogers Seriously aside with apples In Resolution 185 Resolutions, the Play Store and the Apple iPhone store as part of a wider competitive market.
Elsworth told the Court of Appeal that the American provincial judge James Donuto allowed incorrectly an epic to convert Google trial into “interpretation” that excluded the Apple App Store as a competitor in the definition of the market that led to the ruling of the jury in its case.
“You cannot lose a problem that was fully litved in the first time (in the case of Apple) and then pretending that it did not happen,” Elsworth said. She said that the competition in which Google and Apple are involved while making the operating system that operates almost all smartphones in the world “their specialization” in the application market.
But the appeals judges indicated that they believe that the market definitions can differ in cases of the separate application store because Apple collects all its programs and iPhone together – which creates what has become known as a “walled garden” – while Google licenses the Android program that includes it runs a wide range One of the smartphone makers.
Judge Daniel J. Forest for Ellsworth: “It is clear that there are some real differences between the world of Android and Apple World.”
Judge Gabriel Sanchez also seemed skeptical about Google’s claims about assembly by defining the inappropriate market in his trial.
“Even if Google competes strongly with Apple (in smartphone operating systems), this does not mean that it cannot create a different environmental system where it is a monopoly,” Sanchez intervened during the Elsurath show.
The epic lawyer Gary Bournenstein has drawn Google’s arguments as a desperate and unfounded effort to maintain a system that enhances Google’s profits with price -sticking commissions ranging from 15 % to 30 % on the purchases within the application that flow from the programs that were downloaded through the Play Store.
Penalties that Donuto imposed in October And postpone it later While Google continues its attractiveness It would impose a series of comprehensive changes that include making the entire Play Store library consisting of two million applications available for potential competitors – a step expected to lead to low commission rates.
The Court of Appeal has not set a timetable for a ruling in the case of the play store, but it usually takes several months before making a decision.
In the two -hour hearing session on Monday, Burnstein claimed that Google had never tried to determine the Android Application market during the experiment in the way he presented during its call and the three judges’ painting remembered that the tape should be high before the reversal of the jury and the penalty followed by the minimum court judge.
“The benefit of doubt does not go to the violator,” said Burnstein.
Judges seemed more disturbing to Donato’s decision to adhere to the trial of the jury after the case changed shortly before the epic trial when Google settled the lawsuits filed by public lawyers throughout the United States and other prominent applications developer, Match Group. An agreement was reached on the trial of the jury when public lawyers and matches cases were combined with Epic’s, but Google wanted to return to the judge after settling some of the rejected claims by Donato.
At one time during the Burnstein’s offer, Forrest publicly thought about the possibility of declaring the ruling as a decision that was equivalent to the equivalent of a counseling jury and sending the case to Donato to obtain a more longer judgment.
This is an approach preferred by Elsworth, who indicated that the judge’s ruling in the case of the Apple App Store spanned nearly 200 pages while the jury in the Google experience “eight questions and presented 14 words that define a relevant market.”
But Bournenstein urged the Court of Appeal to resort to granting Donato a “home mission” that would give Google more time to take advantage of its illegal behavior.
