双方市场的史诗之战

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-07-05 DOI:10.1177/0003603X231180250
Brianna L. Alderman, R. Blair
{"title":"双方市场的史诗之战","authors":"Brianna L. Alderman, R. Blair","doi":"10.1177/0003603X231180250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Epic Games, the developer of the enormously popular Fortnite, sued Apple for allegedly violating §1 and §2 of the Sherman Act. The central issue was Apple’s requirement that iPhone-compatible apps be purchased in its App Store. Because Apple collects a 30 percent ad valorem tax on each transaction, Epic Games offered an alternative payment option to iPhone owners through the Fortnite app so that consumers could avoid Apple’s 30% fee. When Apple expelled Epic Games from its App Store, Epic sued. In this article, we examine the flawed analysis of the District Court, which can be traced to a fundamental misunderstanding of economic principles.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"68 1","pages":"519 - 532"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets\",\"authors\":\"Brianna L. Alderman, R. Blair\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X231180250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Epic Games, the developer of the enormously popular Fortnite, sued Apple for allegedly violating §1 and §2 of the Sherman Act. The central issue was Apple’s requirement that iPhone-compatible apps be purchased in its App Store. Because Apple collects a 30 percent ad valorem tax on each transaction, Epic Games offered an alternative payment option to iPhone owners through the Fortnite app so that consumers could avoid Apple’s 30% fee. When Apple expelled Epic Games from its App Store, Epic sued. In this article, we examine the flawed analysis of the District Court, which can be traced to a fundamental misunderstanding of economic principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"519 - 532\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231180250\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231180250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大受欢迎的Fortnite的开发商Epic Games起诉苹果公司涉嫌违反《谢尔曼法案》第1条和第2条。核心问题是苹果要求在其应用商店中购买与iPhone兼容的应用程序。由于苹果对每笔交易收取30%的从价税,Epic Games通过Fortnite应用程序为iPhone用户提供了一种替代支付选项,这样消费者就可以避免苹果30%的费用。当苹果将Epic Games逐出其应用商店时,Epic提起诉讼。在这篇文章中,我们考察了地区法院有缺陷的分析,这可以追溯到对经济原则的根本误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
Epic Games, the developer of the enormously popular Fortnite, sued Apple for allegedly violating §1 and §2 of the Sherman Act. The central issue was Apple’s requirement that iPhone-compatible apps be purchased in its App Store. Because Apple collects a 30 percent ad valorem tax on each transaction, Epic Games offered an alternative payment option to iPhone owners through the Fortnite app so that consumers could avoid Apple’s 30% fee. When Apple expelled Epic Games from its App Store, Epic sued. In this article, we examine the flawed analysis of the District Court, which can be traced to a fundamental misunderstanding of economic principles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1