iap and separate payment processors do not violate section one of the sherman act apple's prohibition on outside payment processing is not a violation of the antitrust laws and that is important all those headlines that we read to start this video about apple being forced to put on other processors in in-app payment processing that that's not happening because apple isn't wrong according to the court in prohibiting other payment processing from happening within its space epic games brings two claims under section two arguing monopoly maintenance count one is based on its theory of the ios distribution market and count four is based on the ios in-app payment solutions market so section two of the sherman act section one was restraints of trade section two is your monopoly provision it prohibits persons from monopolizing or attempting to monopolize or combining or conspiring with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states or with foreign nations a claim for unlawful monopolization under section NUMBER_TOKEN requires a plaintiff to show the possession of monopoly power makes sense the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power and antitrust injury remember this is one of the very first things that we talked about in this space monopoly of itself is not illegal the united states antitrust laws do not penalize success successful competition especially so if you just went about your business and you wound up with NUMBER_TOKEN market share that's fine if you did something unreasonable to maintain that NUMBER_TOKEN or to acquire that NUMBER_TOKEN you caused antitrust injury you cause injury to competition that's when the court swings in to get you just being a monopoly not illegal in count one epic games claims that apple has a monopoly and has unlawfully maintained the monopoly by prohibiting ios app developers from distributing their apps through alternative channels in short the court says this claim fails for two significant reasons one epic games failed to prove the first element that apple has monopoly power and two epic games alternatively fails to satisfy the rule of reason analysis that we just talked about with respect to section one which is a less exacting test than is what is required for section NUMBER_TOKEN. epic games did not argue that apple had monopoly power in the market of global mobile gaming transactions and while we can be mad at epic if we're on epic side of a court case like this very difficult to predict that the judge is going to decide that global mobile gaming transactions is the relevant market so you know epic did its best as demonstrated with respect to the relevant market apple does not have substantial market power equating to monopoly power and alternatively epic games section two claims fail to satisfy the rule of reason analysis for the reasons we just talked about above the claim about in-app payment solutions fails for the same reason the tying claim is going to fail as we talked about because they're not distinct products epic games claim fails under either framework because a time claim cannot be sustained where the alleged good is not that separate product here as there iap is but one component of the full suite of services offered by ios and the app store a lot of people came in to discuss with me the epic theory that iap was distinct from the app was distinct from the ios i said well it's a hardware unitary solution that apple wants to sell out into the marketplace corp basically bought that says you can't have a tying claim iap isn't
NO_SEGMENT_TOKEN