3 ms·

Taking away and revoking are the same. The legal work is revoke, they're revoking Epic's license to use MacOS and iOS development tools. That was beyond the sco

by burnte 6y ago

Taking away and revoking are the same. The legal work is revoke, they're revoking Epic's license to use MacOS and iOS development tools. That was beyond the scope of the violation, which was an App Store rule violation. The goal of that move was to prevent Epic from even developing non-App Store content, which I don't think anyone could not foresee it affecting other developers, which I'm fairly sure was the intent. I think they overstepped their contractual recourse for the intent of trying to force epic back to the table, because Epic wouldn't want to lose all their iOS customers.

kergonath 6y ago
> Taking away and revoking are the same. The legal work is revoke, they're revoking Epic's license to use MacOS and iOS development tools. Sorry, my sentence was poorly worded. They threatened to revoke Epic’s license, not the other developers’ (which, again, is what the OP claimed and is specifically what I disputed). I think they did go overboard with the intent to push Epic to settle, yes. And Epic were ready for a mud fight and called their bluff. It looks like the move was a warning, though, and I don’t think they really would do it, at least not for long: they know how important the Unreal Engine is for the platform. If an agreement is found quickly, the impact on others developers is nil. At least in the short term; this brings trust issues over the longer term.
- genocidicbunny 6y ago
  They threatened to effectively revoke other developers licenses. Its plainly clear that if Apple blocks Epic from being able to continue to work on UE for iOS and macOS, they would affect other developers that are currently using Unreal Engine and have not breached Apple's terms. While Apple was not threatening to directly revoke those developers license, the net effect would have been equivalent. This is why the court ruled that Apple cannot currently do this. It's not necessarily because Apple is actually doing something wrong, but because during this litigation, such actions which may not be directly pertinent to the litigation, may have negative effects on unrelated parties. The court isn't saying Apple is wrong for threatening to block Epic fully, including UE. The court is saying that doing say _may_ not be legal and thus Apple should hold off on it until the court has had time to deliberate the issue. It is only prudent of the court to work to reduce the variables in this situation and to prevent potential harm to innocent parties.

by burnte 6y ago

kergonath 6y ago

> Taking away and revoking are the same. The legal work is revoke, they're revoking Epic's license to use MacOS and iOS development tools. Sorry, my sentence was poorly worded. They threatened to revoke Epic’s license, not the other developers’ (which, again, is what the OP claimed and is specifically what I disputed). I think they did go overboard with the intent to push Epic to settle, yes. And Epic were ready for a mud fight and called their bluff. It looks like the move was a warning, though, and I don’t think they really would do it, at least not for long: they know how important the Unreal Engine is for the platform. If an agreement is found quickly, the impact on others developers is nil. At least in the short term; this brings trust issues over the longer term.

genocidicbunny 6y ago
They threatened to effectively revoke other developers licenses. Its plainly clear that if Apple blocks Epic from being able to continue to work on UE for iOS and macOS, they would affect other developers that are currently using Unreal Engine and have not breached Apple's terms. While Apple was not threatening to directly revoke those developers license, the net effect would have been equivalent. This is why the court ruled that Apple cannot currently do this. It's not necessarily because Apple is actually doing something wrong, but because during this litigation, such actions which may not be directly pertinent to the litigation, may have negative effects on unrelated parties. The court isn't saying Apple is wrong for threatening to block Epic fully, including UE. The court is saying that doing say _may_ not be legal and thus Apple should hold off on it until the court has had time to deliberate the issue. It is only prudent of the court to work to reduce the variables in this situation and to prevent potential harm to innocent parties.