Apple, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Gideon discussed on Here & Now

Here & Now
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Save the arm avoid amputation. Is this suggest the idea amputation. As failure is changing. Yes this is really one of the very exciting things. that's emerging from. This is that just as plastic surgery has been done for many years to reconstruct limbs. Amputation is now being viewed as something that can actually be reconstructive and restore Very good function. Well that's remarkable and you and your pizza so well with the promise of this patient. Perhaps eventually as as this technology moves on to be able to use his prosthetic hand to reject and hope hands with his wife remarkable gideon. Gill is whether partners that stat. The health and medicine publication. Thanks for taking the time. Thank you for having me. Apple has emerged bruised but ultimately victorious from a legal battle accusing it of unfair business practices. A federal judge tossed out last week. A claim that apple is a monopoly. The judge ordered the plaintiff in the case. Fortnight maker epic games to pay apple six million dollars but judge yvonne gonzalez rogers also struck down apple's policy forbidding developers from selling app subscriptions outside of the app store and that could have major implications for the future of many tech and gaming businesses in afraid chief technology correspondent for axios and she's been following this trial and joins us now hyena. Let's go back for a moment. Bigs complaint began in august of last year when they defied apple's developer policies by allowing fortnight players to purchase in game items directly from epic and apple then banned fortnight from irs and epic sued parse. This out for us. What did the judge say in this ruling so as you point out it was mostly positive for apple. They found that apple wasn't a monopoly. That was the key to most of epochs claims epic. Wanted really big relief here. They wanted apple to be forced to allow rival app stores and rival purchase mechanisms. The judge did find as as you point out that they violated a california fair business statute and that related to the prohibition around developers even communicating within the app that there's other ways to buy goods so there's an impact here And it's it's not in isolation we've seen other nipping at the heels of apples policies. So they've gotten to keep the core pillars that they want most badly but around the edges. They've had to make some changes. Because of this and other cases right epoch is not alone spotify and the match group owners of tender also praised the epic decision. We should say epic is appealing. This decision on what grounds epochs are going to argue. I imagine the judge was wrong on the law. Wrong on the facts all all the things. One argues on appeal That that the way that she defined the market was erroneous. So a lot of this case hinged on how you define the market because that tells you whether apple has a monopoly so apple certainly has a monopoly over its own ecosystem. But that's not the way that monopolies are usually defined so there was a lot of debate during the trial and this came up in the ruling of what is the relevant market in the end..

Coming up next