Apple has suffered a blow to its efforts to save the profitable search deal with Google. A new decision issued by the Court of Appeal in the continuous current circle confirms that Apple cannot participate in the upcoming hearing to combat monopoly in Google, which may leave billions of dollars in Apple’s public budget. Judges in the case say that Apple simply waited a long time to participate.
Just a few years ago, a high -risk court case related to Apple and Google had found companies on the conflicting parties, but not today. Apple and Google’s interests are aligned strongly here, up to $ 20 billion. Google tours this money every year, and I am pleased to do so to secure the position as the default search provider in Safari Desktop and Browser.
Anti -monopoly penalties against Google will make this deal unacceptable. During the case, the government clarified the value of backwardness – most people never change it. This provides an effective Google audience on Apple devices.
The ongoing legal battle of Google is formed with the Anti -Monopathic Department at the Ministry of Justice to be the most important measures taken by the government against a technical company since Microsoft in the late 1990s. Perhaps this period of stability has deceived Google’s partners to think about anything that will not change, but it seems that the risk of proposed treatments for the government has convinced them otherwise.
Google lost the case in August 2024, and the government suggested treatments in October. according to MediaPost, the Apple Court of Appeal was chosen in the selection of both sides. He did not even submit his file to participate in the treatment stage until November, that is, about 33 days after the initial proposal. The referees spent this delay, “it seems difficult to justify.”
When Google returns to the court in the coming weeks, the company’s lawyer will not be surrounded by the Apple Legal Team. While Apple is allowed to submit a written certificate and a friend of a friend of the stadium, he will not be able to provide evidence to the court or interrogation witnesses, as it sought. Apple argued that he was entitled to do so because he had a direct share of the result.