애픽과 애플의 재판의 판결문 전문 PDF => https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement
이중에서 결론 부분은 179-180 페이지. 볼드 강조 부분은 내가 표시한 것임.
G. Remedies
The relief to which Apple is entitled is that to which Epic Games stipulated in the event
that the Court found it liable for breach of contract, namely:
(1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue Epic Games
collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through Epic Direct Payment between August
and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1,
2020 through the date of judgment; and
(2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements
between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the
contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned
subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at
Apple’s sole discretion.
CONCLUSION
This trial highlighted that “big tech” encompasses many markets, including as relevant
here, the submarket for mobile gaming transactions. This lucrative, $100 billion, market has not
been fully tapped and is ripe for economic exploitation. As a major player in the wider video
gaming industry, Epic Games brought this lawsuit to challenge Apple’s control over access to a
considerable portion of this 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.
Thus, and in summary, the Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the
submarket for mobile gaming transactions. However, it does find that Apple’s conduct in
enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anticompetitive. A remedy to eliminate those provisions is
appropriate. This measured remedy will increase competition, increase transparency, increase
consumer choice and information while preserving Apple’s iOS ecosystem which has
procompetitive justifications. Moreover, it does not require the Court to micromanage business
operations which courts are not well-suited to do as the Supreme Court has appropriately
recognized.
A separate judgment shall issue based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set
forth above, the Court will enter a separate permanent injunction barring the noted restraints.
작성일 : 21-09-11 19:30
조회 : 982
