8 ms·

Some of my highlights: - "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separ

Some of my highlights: - "Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.” - "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." - "The Court further recognizes that during these coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) times, virtual escapes may assist in connecting people and providing a space that is otherwise unavailable. 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." - "With respect to the Unreal Engine and the developer tools, the calculus changes. The record shows potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers. The public context in which this injury arises differs significantly: not only has the underlying agreement not been breached, but the economy is in dire need of increasing avenues for creativity and innovation, not eliminating them. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders."

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
treis 6y ago
>"Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.” To add more color to this, the court refused an injunction to force Apple to enable Fortnite with the Epic payment processing. Epic can remove that and be admitted back to the App store. If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them.
- javagram 6y ago
  > If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them. Also, Apple has been repeatedly inviting epic to do this, so there is no reason to believe Apple would refuse anyway.
  - svrb 6y ago
    The record already reflects (now) that Apple retaliated against Epic in blocking Unreal Engine. (Granted, the court did not use the word "retaliate" because it was a TRO, not a ruling on the facts; but the implication is clear.) Besides fear of sanctions, why wouldn't they retaliate again, and now harder given that the first attempt at retaliation may be thwarted?
    - javagram 6y ago
      The so-called block of unreal engine came along with a letter asking Epic to put fortnite back in compliance before it would happen. There’s no indication that apple intended a purely retaliatory action, it was obviously pressure for Epic to come back into compliance with the App Store terms, which is what apple wants - for Epic to follow the same rules as everyone else. Apple makes money with Fortnite on the App Store and getting that 30% cut.
      - svrb 6y ago
        A threat to retaliate is a form of retaliation.
shados 6y ago
> the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue, which is that Apple (and Google) essentially has the power to make or break any arbitrary business that relies on their platform. They base it on vague and loosely enforced rules, which means companies never know if tomorrow is the end. Having a locked platform in itself isn't an issue. Having an expensive locked platform isn't an issue either. Having an oligopoly of locked platforms (that are important enough that companies can't ignore) with rules that can change or be selectively enforced and have the power to destroy your business model overnight, is a big problem. Reducing the cut to 0% still wouldn't change that.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Nobody is forcing Epic to use Apple's platform though. It never used to be the case, that every device you own must be able to play every game you want. You can already play Fortnite on your PC. Apple cannot stop you from owning a PC, so Apple cannot stop you from playing Fortnite. Yes, Apple is a gatekeeper for its platform. But we've known this forever. Sony is a gatekeeper for the playstation, and Microsoft is a gatekeeper for the Xbox. If developers want the lowest friction possible when releasing games, use a platform where you can release your own store (which Epic already has).
  - WWLink 6y ago
    I wish there was a law saying something like "If you sell a machine that claims to do X, it does X, no exceptions." This "We'll let you develop software for OUR X out of the goodness of our heart as long as you promise not to do Y and pay us Z" BS really gets under my skin. lol I have a feeling everyone here will hate me for saying that though.
  - nick_kline 6y ago
    The ability to buy other hardware devices to avoid one company's control is not a real solution. Besides that, all the major vendors are trying to push you to buy things in their controlled gardens/app stores. Instead of buying more devices (practical maybe for rich computer programmers) how about we just prevent vendor purchase lock-in. I should be able to run or buy or sell to end-users whatever software I want on my devices.
nodamage 6y ago
Another key quote: "Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition. Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that serious questions do exist. Indeed, the Court related this action to the Cameron action because there are overlapping questions of facts and law, including substantively similar claims based on the same Apple App Store policies: namely, the 30% fee that Apple takes from developers through each application sale and IAP in the application." The judge also commented the case is not a slam dunk for either side. I expect the case is going to hinge on whether or not Epic can successfully convince the judge that the market of "iOS App Distribution" is in fact a valid antitrust market. This is not something that can simply be assumed, as US courts have generally been reluctant to allow antitrust markets to be defined in the context of a single brand's product unless specific circumstances are met. If Epic can't establish "iOS App Distribution" as the relevant market then the court will instead look at Apple's market power in the overall smartphone market, which will make Epic's case more difficult as Apple lacks monopoly power in that market.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

treis 6y ago

>"Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.” To add more color to this, the court refused an injunction to force Apple to enable Fortnite with the Epic payment processing. Epic can remove that and be admitted back to the App store. If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them.

javagram 6y ago
> If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them. Also, Apple has been repeatedly inviting epic to do this, so there is no reason to believe Apple would refuse anyway.
- svrb 6y ago
  The record already reflects (now) that Apple retaliated against Epic in blocking Unreal Engine. (Granted, the court did not use the word "retaliate" because it was a TRO, not a ruling on the facts; but the implication is clear.) Besides fear of sanctions, why wouldn't they retaliate again, and now harder given that the first attempt at retaliation may be thwarted?
  - javagram 6y ago
    The so-called block of unreal engine came along with a letter asking Epic to put fortnite back in compliance before it would happen. There’s no indication that apple intended a purely retaliatory action, it was obviously pressure for Epic to come back into compliance with the App Store terms, which is what apple wants - for Epic to follow the same rules as everyone else. Apple makes money with Fortnite on the App Store and getting that 30% cut.
    - svrb 6y ago
      A threat to retaliate is a form of retaliation.

shados 6y ago

> the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative It's unfortunate that the percentage cut ends up overshadowing the real antitrust issue, which is that Apple (and Google) essentially has the power to make or break any arbitrary business that relies on their platform. They base it on vague and loosely enforced rules, which means companies never know if tomorrow is the end. Having a locked platform in itself isn't an issue. Having an expensive locked platform isn't an issue either. Having an oligopoly of locked platforms (that are important enough that companies can't ignore) with rules that can change or be selectively enforced and have the power to destroy your business model overnight, is a big problem. Reducing the cut to 0% still wouldn't change that.

Thorentis 6y ago
Nobody is forcing Epic to use Apple's platform though. It never used to be the case, that every device you own must be able to play every game you want. You can already play Fortnite on your PC. Apple cannot stop you from owning a PC, so Apple cannot stop you from playing Fortnite. Yes, Apple is a gatekeeper for its platform. But we've known this forever. Sony is a gatekeeper for the playstation, and Microsoft is a gatekeeper for the Xbox. If developers want the lowest friction possible when releasing games, use a platform where you can release your own store (which Epic already has).
- WWLink 6y ago
  I wish there was a law saying something like "If you sell a machine that claims to do X, it does X, no exceptions." This "We'll let you develop software for OUR X out of the goodness of our heart as long as you promise not to do Y and pay us Z" BS really gets under my skin. lol I have a feeling everyone here will hate me for saying that though.
- nick_kline 6y ago
  The ability to buy other hardware devices to avoid one company's control is not a real solution. Besides that, all the major vendors are trying to push you to buy things in their controlled gardens/app stores. Instead of buying more devices (practical maybe for rich computer programmers) how about we just prevent vendor purchase lock-in. I should be able to run or buy or sell to end-users whatever software I want on my devices.

nodamage 6y ago

Another key quote: "Epic brings ten claims for violations of Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition. Based on a review of the current limited record before the Court, the Court cannot conclude that Epic has met the high burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits, especially in the antitrust context. However, the Court also concludes that serious questions do exist. Indeed, the Court related this action to the Cameron action because there are overlapping questions of facts and law, including substantively similar claims based on the same Apple App Store policies: namely, the 30% fee that Apple takes from developers through each application sale and IAP in the application." The judge also commented the case is not a slam dunk for either side. I expect the case is going to hinge on whether or not Epic can successfully convince the judge that the market of "iOS App Distribution" is in fact a valid antitrust market. This is not something that can simply be assumed, as US courts have generally been reluctant to allow antitrust markets to be defined in the context of a single brand's product unless specific circumstances are met. If Epic can't establish "iOS App Distribution" as the relevant market then the court will instead look at Apple's market power in the overall smartphone market, which will make Epic's case more difficult as Apple lacks monopoly power in that market.