Live data from Hacker News

Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

courtlistener.com

1–10 of 121 posts

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#3
TL;DR: Apple is prevented from revoking Epic’s developer credentials, as they have threatened to do, at least until this plays out in court. Fortnite is still off the App Store for the duration. A schedule is outline for next steps in the legal case.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#4
Ooph. 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).

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#5
Key quotes:

"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]

#6

Ooph. 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).

I'd take that bet. I think Epic (Tim Sweeney, really) was prepared to lose that revenue to win the war.

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]

#8
I'm pretty sure this is the outcome Epic was expecting.My impression is that they don't want their stunts to affect the developers using Unreal Engine, but they're OK with Fortnite being off the App Store if they can win a concession for things like a smaller cut or even getting their EGS onto iOS.

Re: Epic vs. Apple: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for TRO [pdf]

#9
Some choice sections:

"...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]

#10

Ooph. 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).

I don’t think Epic is making that much money from Fortnite on iOS to actually care, I think they are using Apple because a) its an easy target and if they win the ruling can be expanded to other platforms too where they currently make the most money on and b) while they aren’t a major source of revenue now Epic probably has bigger plans for mobile centric games down the line.

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.

Post reply on HN