Sean Hollister

Sweeney doesn’t have a great answer. Also, I missed copying down what he did said because I was so distracted by what the courtroom revealed right afterwards... one moment on that.

“I felt that events in the world in Epic v. Google and Epic v. Apple were going our way, but globally we were still facing a many year fight, country by country,” he says, deciding that settling was better than continuing to fight other cases around the world.

The judge is not buying this, as you’ll see in my next dispatch.

“The reason we asked for global, it’s to ensure that even in the United States, there will be sufficient competition because there will be sufficient incentives for people like Epic and small companies to make the investment nescessary to get the scale they need to reach a sufficient portion of the users in the world, not just the 5 percent in the United States.”

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, now: “Developers make apps and ship them broadly across all of the world [...] every store will be able to do a much better job of serving US users if it can reach a worldwide audience.”

The original injunction only applies to the US, but the new proposed settlement has terms that would apply globally.

Bernheim is being quizzed on whether this is quid pro quo, and he keeps saying he doesn’t think so, but Judge Donato is letting him avoid discussing specifics because journalists are in the room.

Here’s Epic’s lead attorney Gary Bornstein to answer:

“We love those remedies, period, full stop. We like them, we asked for them, we like them the way we asked for them. Now we have another option that’s on the table that’s the result of a negotiation with Google. We got something through this negotiation that was not on the table before.”

“The only reason Epic is here is because Epic believes this set of remedies in totality will provide longer-term sustainable competition,” says Bornstein. He says holding out for something like this is “the reason Epic didn’t take payoffs back in the day” from Google’s Project Hug and similar.

The overarching question: “Three years and a day, what’s going to happen?”

Bernheim says even if they build those stores, Google will cut off Amazon and co. “Google at that point in time is going to say you can’t have an app that downloads things.” Or erect more friction to sideloading apps.

I don’t quite understand how that changes if were six years rather than three, or why Google wouldn’t shut down its proposed Registered App Store program the same way if that got approved.

“The choice was presented to me that if you want these provisions, which of these do you want? Do you want the ones that are going to provide the better opportunities for competitions to survive, that were in my proposals, or the ones that allow competition to get jumpstarted, which were also in my proposals, which do you pick?”

He seems to be saying that Judge Donato didn’t pick enough of them to make a real dent when he issued his permanent injunction, and didn’t make it last long enough or apply around the world, and so what he truly wanted for competition isn’t happening anyways. So the new settlement is overall better, he’s arguing.