Amicus Brief: Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. en banc
COSAL filed this brief to support the Appellant’s petition for rehearing Epic Games v. Apple en banc. After an inaccurate completion of Rule of Reason analysis, the Panel affirmed the district court's ruling that Epic Games did not show harm to competition. COSAL argued that the Panel should have found the net effect on competition by balancing the anticompetitive outcomes against procompetitive justifications. Instead, they determined that some of the benefits offset some of the harm. Their assertion that even a small procompetitive benefit would allow anticompetitive conduct to stand is detrimental. Other circuit courts necessitate a thorough balancing of the effects so that anticompetitive conduct is not allowed to continue just because it has a small benefit. Furthermore, the Supreme Court states that you must factor in all aspects of a case when making decisions regarding anticompetitive actions. Therefore, the Panel’s decision effectively went against precedent that emphasizes the necessity of the balancing step, and the brief said rehearing this case en banc is necessary to fully weigh the effects of Apple’s actions. Geoffrey Kozen, Stephen Safranski, and Kristen Marttila wrote this Amicus Brief.
