4 ms·

>Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever That is just plain wrong. There's no difference in Apple banning all Epic accounts over this and

by Dah00n 5y ago

>Apple could hypothetically ban all of Epic's accounts forever That is just plain wrong. There's no difference in Apple banning all Epic accounts over this and Apple Banning Microsoft or you for what Epic did. Epic is not one company, each account is a different business. Banning different companies in different countries and continents because of a brand name would get Apple sued into oblivion and would likely be the nail in the coffin for a closed app store.

threatofrain 5y ago
> (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion. Why do you think this is plain wrong?
- InGoodFaith 5y ago
  As you might recall - Apple did retaliate previously by also banning an associated Epic Account (for Unreal Engine and such) but was later legally forced not to [1] 1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-apple-lawsuit-restraining-order-unreal-engine https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-ap...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - notafraudster 5y ago
    That was a temporary restraining order [1] and later certified in a preliminary injunction [2], which is what occurs before a trial in order to best preserve the pre-trial status quo and protect parties from harm pending trial. You will note that the preliminary injunction vacates the temporary restraining order and notes that it will "remain in force until the disposition of this case". The case has been disposed. The final ruling explicitly allows "Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion." I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone. 1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.48.0_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... 2: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.118.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
    - DannyBee 5y ago
      Close, but since epic appealed, it is not disposed yet - it will become final once all appeals are exhausted
    - InGoodFaith 5y ago
      edit: I am not the original GP who said it's plain wrong - perhaps I should lead with that --- I really appreciate your analysis. Perhaps my comment was unclear, but it was in reference to the GP asking > Why do you think this is plain wrong? Since from my understanding the injunction should still be in effect (as mentioned by another commenter). Of course with the added disclaimer that I am not a corporate lawyer. > I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone. I appreciate your candor - while I may exhibit elements of imposter syndrome, I believe I didn't add noise to the SNR of this post since it was my intention to expand on the aformentioned GP's question.
  - microtherion 5y ago
    … in a preliminary injunction that "[...] will remain in force until the disposition of this case" (pg 38, bottom), so once the appeals process has run its course, Apple is no longer bound by this. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21949772/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.118.0.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21949772/g... That said, Epic could always try to get a further injunction on this, and I don't really see an upside for Apple from banning further accounts.
    - InGoodFaith 5y ago
      I appreciate this - I should have expanded on my original post with the appeals disclaimer to clarify.

by Dah00n 5y ago

threatofrain 5y ago

> (2) a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion. Why do you think this is plain wrong?

InGoodFaith 5y ago
As you might recall - Apple did retaliate previously by also banning an associated Epic Account (for Unreal Engine and such) but was later legally forced not to [1] 1: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-apple-lawsuit-restraining-order-unreal-engine https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/9/21492334/epic-fortnite-ap...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- notafraudster 5y ago
  That was a temporary restraining order [1] and later certified in a preliminary injunction [2], which is what occurs before a trial in order to best preserve the pre-trial status quo and protect parties from harm pending trial. You will note that the preliminary injunction vacates the temporary restraining order and notes that it will "remain in force until the disposition of this case". The case has been disposed. The final ruling explicitly allows "Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion." I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone. 1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.48.0_3.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... 2: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.118.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
  - DannyBee 5y ago
    Close, but since epic appealed, it is not disposed yet - it will become final once all appeals are exhausted
  - InGoodFaith 5y ago
    edit: I am not the original GP who said it's plain wrong - perhaps I should lead with that --- I really appreciate your analysis. Perhaps my comment was unclear, but it was in reference to the GP asking > Why do you think this is plain wrong? Since from my understanding the injunction should still be in effect (as mentioned by another commenter). Of course with the added disclaimer that I am not a corporate lawyer. > I seriously recommend not relying on blog analysis of a court case and instead reading the court documents, and if you are unable to do so (understandable!) to avoid participating in the conversation in the manner of correcting someone. I appreciate your candor - while I may exhibit elements of imposter syndrome, I believe I didn't add noise to the SNR of this post since it was my intention to expand on the aformentioned GP's question.
- microtherion 5y ago
  … in a preliminary injunction that "[...] will remain in force until the disposition of this case" (pg 38, bottom), so once the appeals process has run its course, Apple is no longer bound by this. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21949772/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.118.0.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21949772/g... That said, Epic could always try to get a further injunction on this, and I don't really see an upside for Apple from banning further accounts.
  - InGoodFaith 5y ago
    I appreciate this - I should have expanded on my original post with the appeals disclaimer to clarify.