> Epic's appeal is very much alive. Apple will use its market power and money to get support from all sorts of "friends of the court" as well, possibly even ridiculous astroturfing organizations. But it won't be able to counterbalance the support Epic received from 35 states, Microsoft, the EFF, and America's most cited and most authoritative antitrust law professor. It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor.
Update: The U.S. federal government has now filed a brief as well:
> The United States enforces the federal antitrust laws and has a strong interest in their correct interpretation. The United States files this brief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2), to address errors in the district court’s analysis of the Sherman Act, which, if uncorrected, could significantly harm antitrust enforcement. The United States takes no position on the merits of the parties’ claims.
Florian Mueller's name rang a bell, then I remembered that it was discovered that he was a paid shill for Oracle a while back[1]. I wonder how much Epic is paying?
Last time people were accusing him of being an Apple shill, because he correctly analyzed the ruling as pro-Apple when the tech press and commenters were thinking Apple had a huge defeat. Shill accusations make more sense when backed up by actual argument and reasoning. Instead they're used when those things are lacking.
This line from the quote is doing some heavy lifting:
> It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor.
It's the kind of thing I would definitely write if I were being paid to paint Epic as a humble yet valiant defender of the consumer.
You've got about 20,000 karma on this site, if we find one analysis of yours that's wrong does that give us the right to dismiss everything else you say?
Florian Mueller was the only figure in tech journalism who correctly interpreted the major ruling in the case to be pro-Apple.
And we didn't even know the identity of the person(s) behind Groklaw, much less if they were funded by a company, but that's totally fine because of the bias right?
That's why I found the "astroturfing" mention interesting. Epic's side of this arrangement has been marketing and astroturfing extensively. The entire launch of the piece was a marketing blitz.
Don't you compare the shit Oracle tried to do with Google with the evil of Apple and the relatively social/industry good that the Epic lawsuit will do.
> while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor.
Snapchat. I am willing to bet they will issues a statement, PR or whatever it may be just as they have been doing for the past 6 years. The whole PR and marketing operation from Apple is getting quite boring / tiring. Same old tricks, same people, same moves, same tactics, same PR.
It works for those who dont follow Apple closely, and just reading them off some mainstream media. But follow them long and detail enough you should notice the same pattern. They have learned nothing from Katie Cotton, the Master of PR. If they had done better, even if I disagree with them I could have at least given them credit for doing a good job spinning it.
> It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor.
Call me cynical but I have my suspicions about this claim.
> Epic's appeal is very much alive. Apple will use its market power and money to get support from all sorts of "friends of the court" as well, possibly even ridiculous astroturfing organizations. But it won't be able to counterbalance the support Epic received from 35 states, Microsoft, the EFF, and America's most cited and most authoritative antitrust law professor. It will probably be easy to see for the Ninth Circuit that those who support Epic do so because it's the right and necessary thing to do, while those who will support Apple are just going to have reasons to do Apple a favor.
Update: The U.S. federal government has now filed a brief as well:
> The United States enforces the federal antitrust laws and has a strong interest in their correct interpretation. The United States files this brief, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a)(2), to address errors in the district court’s analysis of the Sherman Act, which, if uncorrected, could significantly harm antitrust enforcement. The United States takes no position on the merits of the parties’ claims.
Further analysis on the government’s brief specifically: http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/01/biden-administration-back...