Apple to Argue It Faces Competition in Video Game Market In Epic Lawsuit
The article explores Epic Systems’ practices through the lens of potential anticompetitive behavior, questioning whether its actions are merely competitive or exclusionary. It discusses seven key aspects of Epic’s behavior that may raise concerns:
Artificially Increasing Third-Party Developer Costs: Allegations suggest Epic imposed constraints on third-party developers, raising costs and limiting efficiency.
Non-Competes And Right Of Refusal: Epic’s use of non-compete agreements with employees and restrictions on hiring impact the job market and innovation.
Raising Fees: Epic’s fee structure changes post the Information Blocking rules allegedly increased transaction costs for some, potentially impacting competition.
Bundling, Tying And Pricing Practices: Epic’s bundling of products and pricing strategies raise questions about fair competition.
Picking Winners and Losers: The shift from App Orchard to Showroom suggests Epic’s influence over which products succeed, potentially stifling innovation.
Chilling The Market For Innovation: Pre-announcing products may freeze market competition, affecting decision-making by IT departments.
Vertical Manipulation: Epic’s close relationship with hospital CIOs potentially impacts innovation and consumer choice, especially in non-competitive markets.
The article concludes by questioning the regulatory scrutiny Epic may attract and advocating for a more competitive and open market in healthcare technology.
#HealthTech #Antitrust #Innovation #HealthcareMarket #EpicSystems