3 ms·

Apple is doing it's absolute best to allow Epic to demonstrate irreparable harm in their motion for a preliminary injunction... This is a curious decision cons

by gpm 6y ago

Apple is doing it's absolute best to allow Epic to demonstrate irreparable harm in their motion for a preliminary injunction... This is a curious decision considering that the primary distinction between the part of the temporary restraining order the court granted (against Apple interfering with unreal engine) and the part the court denied (against Apple interfering with fortnite) was that the court thought that Epic had demonstrated irreparable harm with respect to the former and not the latter. I don't get it. (Legalities note: A temporary restraining order is basically a "preliminary preliminary injunction", the same idea, but granted earlier and only lasts until the court rules on the actual preliminary injunction)

fatnoah 6y ago
I also don't get it. It feels like Apple is just shooting itself in the foot. IIRC, if you allow sign in with Google/Facebook/etc. you're required to support Sign In with Apple. Now Apple is disabling that just for Epic. Apple's playing right into Epics assertion that App Store rules are applied arbitrarily and capriciously.
fooey 6y ago
The judge ruled there is no irreparable harm because it's trivial for Epic themselves to repair the harm at any time that they themselves caused.
- gpm 6y ago
  *because it was trivial for Epic to return the situation to the status quo. The court was very much not making statements about harm in general (that's just not what happens at this phase of litigation). Apple is moving the situation farther from the status quo... which strikes me as a very bad legal strategy when the ruling for them was based on the idea that maintaining the status quo did not cause irreparable harm. I expect the judge is going to have some serious questions about whether this action is in response to them violating the terms of service (status quo as I believe the judge is interpreting the phrase), or if it's about retaliating against the lawsuit [1]. Novel punitive actions using services that aren't directly related don't strike me as business as usual. [1] Unless the court rules in some way that makes the whole question moot. We shouldn't read too much into how the court ruled on the TRO.
  - m3kw9 6y ago
    All terms of service is a status quo in a way
  - user5994461 6y ago
    Considering that the court didn't find harm in banning Epic developer account, I don't see why the court would find harm in banning sign-in with Apple for Epic. It's very similar, seems like a reasonable next move. We can agree that there is a risk of being found retaliatory and it might not be the greatest strategic move as found in court 5 years later, but the risk is worthwhile.

by gpm 6y ago

fatnoah 6y ago

I also don't get it. It feels like Apple is just shooting itself in the foot. IIRC, if you allow sign in with Google/Facebook/etc. you're required to support Sign In with Apple. Now Apple is disabling that just for Epic. Apple's playing right into Epics assertion that App Store rules are applied arbitrarily and capriciously.

fooey 6y ago

The judge ruled there is no irreparable harm because it's trivial for Epic themselves to repair the harm at any time that they themselves caused.

gpm 6y ago
*because it was trivial for Epic to return the situation to the status quo. The court was very much not making statements about harm in general (that's just not what happens at this phase of litigation). Apple is moving the situation farther from the status quo... which strikes me as a very bad legal strategy when the ruling for them was based on the idea that maintaining the status quo did not cause irreparable harm. I expect the judge is going to have some serious questions about whether this action is in response to them violating the terms of service (status quo as I believe the judge is interpreting the phrase), or if it's about retaliating against the lawsuit [1]. Novel punitive actions using services that aren't directly related don't strike me as business as usual. [1] Unless the court rules in some way that makes the whole question moot. We shouldn't read too much into how the court ruled on the TRO.
- m3kw9 6y ago
  All terms of service is a status quo in a way
- user5994461 6y ago
  Considering that the court didn't find harm in banning Epic developer account, I don't see why the court would find harm in banning sign-in with Apple for Epic. It's very similar, seems like a reasonable next move. We can agree that there is a risk of being found retaliatory and it might not be the greatest strategic move as found in court 5 years later, but the risk is worthwhile.