4 ms·

Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law. Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App Store rules, in

Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law. Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App Store rules, in fact the judge suggested they do that so their users aren't impacted. They wouldn't be getting kicked off right now and the Sign-in with Apple button wouldn't be getting disabled. They chose to break the app store rules, which they did agreed to, AND they also decided to sue Apple. They could revert their app right now and Apple would restore their account and they could still continue their lawsuit. Epic is just weaponizing their user base in their fight against Apple.

modeless 6y ago
> They could revert their app right now and Apple would restore their account You have no way of knowing this and frankly I doubt it. And I'm not sure that it wouldn't weaken their legal position.
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  Apple literally told them that in court. Remove the crap, and you go back on the store.
  - modeless 6y ago
    Do you have a reference for this?
    - RL_Quine 6y ago
      https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/25/apple-statement-restraining-order-ruling-epic-games/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/25/apple-statement-restrai... "We agree with Judge Gonzalez-Rogers that 'the sensible way to proceed' is for Epic to comply with the App Store guidelines and continue to operate while the case proceeds. If Epic takes the steps the judge has recommended, we will gladly welcome Fortnite back onto iOS. We look forward to making our case to the court in September."
      - modeless 6y ago
        You're right. I hadn't seen that Apple had stated this explicitly. I guess Epic filed another motion to the judge to try and prevent Apple from allegedly illegally forcing them to comply, so they're currently waiting to see the result before taking more actions. Edit: Oh, and Epic also says Apple privately threatened to ban them for a year, contradicting what they said in court.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Apple said: submit to our antitrust violation and we'll stop abusing our market position and let you back in. Among other things, Apple does not allow developers to mention competing products or that discounts are available for purchasing outside of the Apple store.
  - daveoc64 6y ago
    While Apple originally said that, they have also said that they feel Epic's violation of the rules warrants a one year suspension of their account: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/sep/09/fortnite-could-face-year-long-apple-ban-says-epic-games https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/sep/09/fortnite-could...
gamblor956 6y ago
in fact the judge suggested they do that so their users aren't impacted. In fact, the judge did not suggest they do so because absent economic harm Epic had no standing to sue until Apple retaliated. The judge simply pointed out that they couldn't provide injunctive relief forcing Apple to allow Epic to have its own store before the case was decided on the merits. (Judges rarely grant injunctive relief to change the status quo, especially in commercial cases.)
- nodamage 6y ago
  I am amazed that this obviously false claim has been repeated a dozen times in this thread. Epic already has suffered economic harm based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has previously collected. They already had standing to sue to get those fees back. They did not need to do anything else. > In fact, the judge did not suggest they do so because absent economic harm Epic had no standing to sue until Apple retaliated. Yes, she did. She literally suggested the sensible way to proceed was to comply with the agreement while the lawsuit went on. Epic Games remains free to maintain its agreements with Apple in breach status as this litigation continues, but as the Seventh Circuit recognized in Second City Music, “[t]he sensible way to proceed is for [Epic to comply with the agreements and guidelines] and continue to operate while it builds a record.” Id. “Any injury that [Epic Games] incurs by following a different course is of its own choosing.” Id. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.48.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265... (Page 5)
  - modeless 6y ago
    Antitrust requires demonstrating harm to consumers, not just to Epic.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      Not to establish standing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24427468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24427468
henryfjordan 6y ago
> Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law. Epic is alleging that Apple is breaking the law. That's the whole point of the antitrust lawsuit, to decide if they are or are not. > Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App Store rules No they could not. They needed standing to sue. "Apple is doing what the contract says and we don't like it" does not establish standing. Epic needed to act as though the contract was illegal, suffer some harm, and then they have standing to sue. That's exactly what happened. You are correct that they could revert their changes and comply for the time being and Apple seems amenable to that.
- nodamage 6y ago
  Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected. They already "suffered harm", they did not need to do anything further in order to sue.
  - henryfjordan 6y ago
    The harm was unfair anti-competitive practices, namely being prevented from operating their own payment processor. Until Epic got kicked off the App Store for operating their own payment processor, there was no harm.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      By being "forced" to use Apple's payment system instead of their own, Epic has already "suffered harm" due to the $300 million in fees they otherwise would not have paid. There was no need to get kicked off the App Store in addition to that. The judge literally recommended Epic undo their "hotfix" and cure the breach of contract while the case continued in court. If for some reason you still do not believe this, I recommend checking with your lawyer.
  - modeless 6y ago
    You are fixated on this because of my imprecise use of the legal term "standing", but it's not really relevant. Standing to bring a suit that will probably get thrown out on summary judgement is not useful. What's relevant is that there is harm to consumers here and Epic needed to specifically demonstrate it to have a real chance of prevailing in an antitrust case. An allegedly illegal contract should not restrain them from doing so.

modeless 6y ago

> They could revert their app right now and Apple would restore their account You have no way of knowing this and frankly I doubt it. And I'm not sure that it wouldn't weaken their legal position.

RL_Quine 6y ago
Apple literally told them that in court. Remove the crap, and you go back on the store.
- modeless 6y ago
  Do you have a reference for this?
  - RL_Quine 6y ago
    https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/25/apple-statement-restraining-order-ruling-epic-games/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/25/apple-statement-restrai... "We agree with Judge Gonzalez-Rogers that 'the sensible way to proceed' is for Epic to comply with the App Store guidelines and continue to operate while the case proceeds. If Epic takes the steps the judge has recommended, we will gladly welcome Fortnite back onto iOS. We look forward to making our case to the court in September."
    - modeless 6y ago
      You're right. I hadn't seen that Apple had stated this explicitly. I guess Epic filed another motion to the judge to try and prevent Apple from allegedly illegally forcing them to comply, so they're currently waiting to see the result before taking more actions. Edit: Oh, and Epic also says Apple privately threatened to ban them for a year, contradicting what they said in court.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Apple said: submit to our antitrust violation and we'll stop abusing our market position and let you back in. Among other things, Apple does not allow developers to mention competing products or that discounts are available for purchasing outside of the Apple store.
- daveoc64 6y ago
  While Apple originally said that, they have also said that they feel Epic's violation of the rules warrants a one year suspension of their account: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/sep/09/fortnite-could-face-year-long-apple-ban-says-epic-games https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/sep/09/fortnite-could...

gamblor956 6y ago

in fact the judge suggested they do that so their users aren't impacted. In fact, the judge did not suggest they do so because absent economic harm Epic had no standing to sue until Apple retaliated. The judge simply pointed out that they couldn't provide injunctive relief forcing Apple to allow Epic to have its own store before the case was decided on the merits. (Judges rarely grant injunctive relief to change the status quo, especially in commercial cases.)

nodamage 6y ago
I am amazed that this obviously false claim has been repeated a dozen times in this thread. Epic already has suffered economic harm based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has previously collected. They already had standing to sue to get those fees back. They did not need to do anything else. > In fact, the judge did not suggest they do so because absent economic harm Epic had no standing to sue until Apple retaliated. Yes, she did. She literally suggested the sensible way to proceed was to comply with the agreement while the lawsuit went on. Epic Games remains free to maintain its agreements with Apple in breach status as this litigation continues, but as the Seventh Circuit recognized in Second City Music, “[t]he sensible way to proceed is for [Epic to comply with the agreements and guidelines] and continue to operate while it builds a record.” Id. “Any injury that [Epic Games] incurs by following a different course is of its own choosing.” Id. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.48.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265... (Page 5)
- modeless 6y ago
  Antitrust requires demonstrating harm to consumers, not just to Epic.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    Not to establish standing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24427468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24427468

henryfjordan 6y ago

> Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law. Epic is alleging that Apple is breaking the law. That's the whole point of the antitrust lawsuit, to decide if they are or are not. > Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App Store rules No they could not. They needed standing to sue. "Apple is doing what the contract says and we don't like it" does not establish standing. Epic needed to act as though the contract was illegal, suffer some harm, and then they have standing to sue. That's exactly what happened. You are correct that they could revert their changes and comply for the time being and Apple seems amenable to that.

nodamage 6y ago
Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected. They already "suffered harm", they did not need to do anything further in order to sue.
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  The harm was unfair anti-competitive practices, namely being prevented from operating their own payment processor. Until Epic got kicked off the App Store for operating their own payment processor, there was no harm.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    By being "forced" to use Apple's payment system instead of their own, Epic has already "suffered harm" due to the $300 million in fees they otherwise would not have paid. There was no need to get kicked off the App Store in addition to that. The judge literally recommended Epic undo their "hotfix" and cure the breach of contract while the case continued in court. If for some reason you still do not believe this, I recommend checking with your lawyer.
- modeless 6y ago
  You are fixated on this because of my imprecise use of the legal term "standing", but it's not really relevant. Standing to bring a suit that will probably get thrown out on summary judgement is not useful. What's relevant is that there is harm to consumers here and Epic needed to specifically demonstrate it to have a real chance of prevailing in an antitrust case. An allegedly illegal contract should not restrain them from doing so.