Apple Argues to Get Epic Injunction Thrown Out

Apple goes on to point out that Epic Games in fact no longer meets the legal requirement of “standing” because it is not an iOS developer and cannot be impacted by a Guideline that applies to iOS developers.

"Sure, Elizabeth is suing me because I discriminate against my female and heathen employees, but I fired her, so she has no standing anymore. Please dismiss the case!"

It probably is because Epic Games have not tried to get its developer account reinstated and it could be interpreted that it does not want to be an iOS developer any longer, and without that also goes its standing.

Think different

They can take away your standing simply by terminating your developer account?

To be fair, it wasn’t like they terminated their account for no reason.

@Apple Fanboy That’s not true. There was a whole thing where Apple said they wanted Epic back, and then Epic tried to get its account reinstated, and then Apple refused, and Epic tried various legal maneuvers to make Apple reinstate it.

@Jeff Milner Right, but Apple seems to be arguing that you can’t litigate whether the reason was valid because as soon as they’ve made their decision you no longer have standing.

Don't forget that Epic broke the agreement in the first place and then accused the agreement as anti-competitive.

Is no 3rd party payment allowed anti-competitive? Is Apple running a bank and force everybody to pay via its credit card? No.
Is it legit for the court or the Federal office getting involved in the business operating of private enterprise? As a believer of capitalism, I don't think so.
As an honest man, I don't buy the shamelessness of Epic eating its free lunch.

"Don't forget that Epic broke the agreement in the first place and then accused the agreement as anti-competitive."

I think you're mixing up the sequence. In order to determine whether the agreement is legally anticompetitive, Epic had to break the agreement, see what Apple's reaction would be, and then initiate the lawsuit based on the reaction. So the catch-22 remains: if Apple can now use Epic's behavior as reason for removing their standing, then that essentially means that Apple can't be sued.

"Is it legit for the court or the Federal office getting involved in the business operating of private enterprise? As a believer of capitalism, I don't think so."

That's the kind of principled stance that is abandoned very quickly when circumstances change, given that the court system is what allows private enterprises to have legal, enforceable contracts with each other to begin with.

"I don't buy the shamelessness of Epic eating its free lunch"

That's an odd position to take, given that Apple essentially forced Epic to pay for and eat its lunch by preventing them from cooking their own food.

Apple is spending tons of money to defend its monopoly. It looks like it is trying to corrupt politicians with its rentier profits instead of standing for what benefits everyone, except its shareholders: level playing fields.

https://archive.ph/wip/BYWgT

Let's hope the politicians don't simply take Apple's money, because if they do, the whole enterprise, which started with the Congress' report that big tech is behaving monopolistically, will look like an old fashioned Mafiosi protection scheme.

To Plume:
>> I don't buy the shamelessness of Epic eating its free lunch"
> That's an odd position to take, given that Apple essentially forced Epic to pay for and eat its lunch by preventing them from cooking their own food.

How Apple is able to do it? What prevents Epic from investing on its own infrastructure? Who is eating whose lunch?