3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoAll terms of service is a status quo in a way
- user5994461 6y agoConsidering 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.