3 ms·
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 n
by 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 agoI 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)