Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
1–10 of 121 posts
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#2Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#3Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#4Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#5"the Court observes that Epic Games strategically chose to breach its agreements with Apple which changed the status quo"
"However the showing is not sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited, proceedings."
"Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders."
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#6Ooph. I'm betting that Epic was expecting to get to stay on the app store during the trial. That's an expensive difference. I would guess that Epic will retract its change and ask to be relisted on the app store (and if that doesn't happen, seek rapid redress in the court, since this TRO decision explicitly lists Epic's ability to be reinstated as a rationale for why there is no risk of irrevocable harm).
This ruling is what I expected and seems quite reasonable. Epic doesn't get temporary special privileges to break App Store rules (even though they are alleged to be illegal), but also Apple can't retaliate against them in other areas.
If Epic does reverse the payment changes in an attempt to return Fortnite to the App Store until the lawsuit is resolved, I doubt Apple will let them back in unless forced by the court (despite Tim Cook's "Sir, we do not retaliate or bully people").
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#7I wonder if there could have been a better sequence of events (e.g. sue first rather than sneaking it in)?
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#8Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#9"...On Thursday, August 13, 2020, Epic Games made the calculated decision to breach its allegedly illegal agreements with Apple by activating allegedly hidden code in Fortnite allowing Epic Games to collect IAPs directly. In response, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, where it remains unavailable to the date of this Order. Later that same day, Epic Games filed this action and began a pre-planned, and blistering, marketing campaign against Apple... "
"...The Court finds that with respect to Epic Games’ motion as to its games, including Fortnite, Epic Games has not yet demonstrated irreparable harm. The current predicament appears of its own making... Epic Games admits that the technology exists to “fix” the problem easily by deactivating the “hotfix.” That Epic Games would prefer not to litigate in that context does not mean that “irreparable harm” exists..."
"...Epic Games moves this Court to allow it to access Apple’s platform for free while it makes money on each purchase made on the same platform. While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free..."
Ouch.
Separately, the aspect of Apple pulling keys for the developer (e.g. Unreal Engine) platform access was granted a preliminary injunction. Which seems reasonable.
I guess Epic has a couple days to decide whether to give in or not: "Fortnite’s next season starts on Thursday, August 27, 2020, and will require an update of the game to play."
Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]
#10Ooph. I'm betting that Epic was expecting to get to stay on the app store during the trial. That's an expensive difference. I would guess that Epic will retract its change and ask to be relisted on the app store (and if that doesn't happen, seek rapid redress in the court, since this TRO decision explicitly lists Epic's ability to be reinstated as a rationale for why there is no risk of irrevocable harm).
Basically now it’s the best time for them to do it, Apple is a huge target and they can gain industry support, Fortnite is big enough that even the average judge, jurist and jury member is likely aware of it and right now they stand to lose very little financially from not being on iOS while the potential future gains are insane.