4 ms·

They're not going after "unrelated business", though. They cancelled Epic's developer account which is exactly the remediation listed in the agreement for the a

They're not going after "unrelated business", though. They cancelled Epic's developer account which is exactly the remediation listed in the agreement for the account. If you violate the terms, your account is suspended. Epic brought this on themselves when they made their move without thinking about how that would affect the rest of their business.

sushid 6y ago
I mean you can read the court ruling for yourself. The court disagrees with you there for reasons specified. The court does rule that "Epic brought this on themselves" for the Fortnite app on iOS but not for Apple restricting its SDK for Unreal Engine.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  No, they didn't. The court ruled in a way to minimize the calculation of damages. Apple may still be able to continue doing what they intended and revoke that partnership but the judge just ruled that they need to keep operating as they have until this is settled so that they don't have to factor in the potential liabilities of both points.
username90 6y ago
> They cancelled Epic's developer account which is exactly the remediation listed in the agreement for the account. No, Epic is two different companies with two different accounts. Apple canceled both the account for Fortnite and the account for Unreal.
- dkonofalski 6y ago
  No, they didn't. They responded to Epic threatening to cease assistance for the 2nd arm of Epic if the Fortnite arm refused to comply. Only 1 account was cancelled.
  - reissbaker 6y ago
    They literally threatened to cancel the second account. This is what the injunction is about, and the judge ruled that Apple can't cancel the second account and prevent Epic from using Mac tools to legally develop Unreal. You would know this if you read the injunction that is being discussed...
    - dkonofalski 6y ago
      That's not what the judge ruled at all so I'm confused by your statements about reading the injunction. All the judge "ruled" was that Apple needs to maintain the current status quo of their other arrangements until they actually rule on the main cause of the case. If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over. What the judge actually ruled was akin to "You go to that side of the room and you go to the other. Stop hitting each other while I figure out who broke the toy." The judge didn't make any kind of determination on the legality of anything and you can't make a legal judgement on a threat of doing something.
      - reissbaker 6y ago
        Apple threatened to cancel Epic's second account and cut off Epic from its macOS tools starting Aug 28th; Epic said that unfairly threatened its other lines of businesses and a court should prevent Apple from doing so until the antitrust suit finished (and should also reinstate Fortnite until the suit finished); the judge ruled that Apple cutting off Epic's second account from the Unreal tools before the court case finished was unreasonable and legally prevented it from doing so, but that banning Fortnite was not unreasonable and did not legally prevent it from doing so. Judges make legal decisions. If a judge says you can't do something, that means it's illegal; judges can rule whether a future action is illegal, including based on a threat, and that's what this injunction does. This injunction references Apple's threat and, ultimately, says that they legally can't do it (for now), just as Epic can't legally force Apple to reinstate Fortnite (for now). But anyway, as to your original assertion that this injunction is unrelated to Apple's threat to terminate Epic's account with the Apple Developer Program, here's a direct quote from the injunction: "THEREFORE, APPLE AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH APPLE, ARE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from taking adverse action against Epic Games with respect to restricting, suspending or terminating any affiliate of Epic Games, such as Epic International, from Apple’s Developer Program [italics mine]" Also, re: your assertion that "If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over." — I don't think anyone involved in the antitrust case, including the judge, ruled or believes anything like "the matter is over" and "the status quo is maintained" if Apple is found to be violating antitrust law. The status quo legally could not be maintained by Apple in that case. What exactly Apple would have to do would depend on what precisely the judge ruled, but maintaining the status quo would not be an option.

sushid 6y ago

I mean you can read the court ruling for yourself. The court disagrees with you there for reasons specified. The court does rule that "Epic brought this on themselves" for the Fortnite app on iOS but not for Apple restricting its SDK for Unreal Engine.

dkonofalski 6y ago
No, they didn't. The court ruled in a way to minimize the calculation of damages. Apple may still be able to continue doing what they intended and revoke that partnership but the judge just ruled that they need to keep operating as they have until this is settled so that they don't have to factor in the potential liabilities of both points.

username90 6y ago

> They cancelled Epic's developer account which is exactly the remediation listed in the agreement for the account. No, Epic is two different companies with two different accounts. Apple canceled both the account for Fortnite and the account for Unreal.

dkonofalski 6y ago
No, they didn't. They responded to Epic threatening to cease assistance for the 2nd arm of Epic if the Fortnite arm refused to comply. Only 1 account was cancelled.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  They literally threatened to cancel the second account. This is what the injunction is about, and the judge ruled that Apple can't cancel the second account and prevent Epic from using Mac tools to legally develop Unreal. You would know this if you read the injunction that is being discussed...
  - dkonofalski 6y ago
    That's not what the judge ruled at all so I'm confused by your statements about reading the injunction. All the judge "ruled" was that Apple needs to maintain the current status quo of their other arrangements until they actually rule on the main cause of the case. If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over. What the judge actually ruled was akin to "You go to that side of the room and you go to the other. Stop hitting each other while I figure out who broke the toy." The judge didn't make any kind of determination on the legality of anything and you can't make a legal judgement on a threat of doing something.
    - reissbaker 6y ago
      Apple threatened to cancel Epic's second account and cut off Epic from its macOS tools starting Aug 28th; Epic said that unfairly threatened its other lines of businesses and a court should prevent Apple from doing so until the antitrust suit finished (and should also reinstate Fortnite until the suit finished); the judge ruled that Apple cutting off Epic's second account from the Unreal tools before the court case finished was unreasonable and legally prevented it from doing so, but that banning Fortnite was not unreasonable and did not legally prevent it from doing so. Judges make legal decisions. If a judge says you can't do something, that means it's illegal; judges can rule whether a future action is illegal, including based on a threat, and that's what this injunction does. This injunction references Apple's threat and, ultimately, says that they legally can't do it (for now), just as Epic can't legally force Apple to reinstate Fortnite (for now). But anyway, as to your original assertion that this injunction is unrelated to Apple's threat to terminate Epic's account with the Apple Developer Program, here's a direct quote from the injunction: "THEREFORE, APPLE AND ALL PERSONS IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH APPLE, ARE TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from taking adverse action against Epic Games with respect to restricting, suspending or terminating any affiliate of Epic Games, such as Epic International, from Apple’s Developer Program [italics mine]" Also, re: your assertion that "If Apple wins, then there's another matter to attend to. If they don't, then the status quo is still maintained and the matter is over." — I don't think anyone involved in the antitrust case, including the judge, ruled or believes anything like "the matter is over" and "the status quo is maintained" if Apple is found to be violating antitrust law. The status quo legally could not be maintained by Apple in that case. What exactly Apple would have to do would depend on what precisely the judge ruled, but maintaining the status quo would not be an option.