Looks like
the government is taking Epic's side in the appeal.
The Justice Department, Microsoft and the following 35 U.S. states have filed in support of Epic:
"The states--led by the Beehive State--are (in alphabetical order): Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C. (I'm not taking a position on the controversial question of statehood here), Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah (submitter), Vermont, and Washington."
As a non-lawyer, with at best a passing familiarity of the case, the government seems to be taking a narrow approach. The states are saying that the lower court "erred in deciding that Section 1 of the Sherman Act does not apply to a 'unilateral contract.'" They claim that "excluding contracts like Apple’s simply because Apple 'unilaterally imposed' the terms makes bad antitrust public policy."
Also, one can't help but notice that Microsoft,
who has been conveniently carved out of anti-trust bills, has added its voice alongside the government, because apparently they are suddenly all for competition and enforcing anti-trust laws.
@Cmaier, does this change the equation for Apple in any meaningful way, in your opinion? Or is this bandwagon political posturing?