{"id":29876,"date":"2020-08-25T16:27:54","date_gmt":"2020-08-25T20:27:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=29876"},"modified":"2021-06-18T07:11:42","modified_gmt":"2021-06-18T11:11:42","slug":"court-rules-on-epics-temporary-restraining-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2020\/08\/25\/court-rules-on-epics-temporary-restraining-order\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Rules on Epic’s Temporary Restraining Order"},"content":{"rendered":"

Manish Singh<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>, MacRumors<\/a>):<\/p>\n

A district court denied Epic Games’ motion to temporarily restore the Fortnite game to the iOS App Store, but also ordered Apple to not block the gaming giant’s ability to provide and distribute Unreal Engine on the iPhone-maker’s ecosystem in a mixed-ruling delivered Monday evening.<\/p>\n

U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said Apple can’t retaliate against Epic Games by blocking the gaming firm’s developer accounts or restrict developers on Apple platforms from accessing the widely used Unreal Engine tools.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

This seems like the right call to me. The order is here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

For good play-by-play livestream coverage of the hearing, I suggest reading Sarah Jeong’s thread on Twitter<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Florian Mueller<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Judge Gonzalez Rogers reminded attendees of the fact that a TRO needs to be replaced by a preliminary injunction (PI) after 14 days--unless extended by consent--or it simply goes out of effect. Therefore, even if Epic obtained a TRO now, Apple could still try to prevail with respect to Unreal Engine a couple of weeks later--and this goes both ways, so whatever Epic doesn’t win immediately, it could still pursue in the next round. The PI hearing has been scheduled for September 28, so the TRO decision will be in effect for about a month.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

With respect to Fortnite, however, the case appears clear to the judge. She told Epic’s counsel that they “didn’t tell Apple you had code in there [for an alternative payment system]” and noted that “this was not an insignificant breach, hence the reason we are here.” Counsel for Epic argued that her client merely “ceased complyi with an anticompetitive contract” or, more narrowly, “an anticompetitive provision.”<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

The judge expressed concern over Apple having taken an overreaching step by announcing the termination of a developer agreement that “has not been breached.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Apple<\/a>:<\/p>\n

We thank the court for recognizing that Epic’s problem is entirely self-inflicted and is in their power to resolve. Our very first priority is making sure App Store users have a great experience in a safe and trusted environment, including iPhone users who play Fortnite and who are looking forward to the game’s next season.<\/p>

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Colin Cornaby<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It’s worth noting how bizarre Apple’s argument was. They demand their contracts be dealt with as absolutes, but when asked why they are terminating the dev tools contract that isn’t breached, they go “well we break routinely break contracts when we feel like it”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Frank Reiff<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It’s shocking to hear that Apple’s legal team are gunning for all Unreal Engine developers and do not seem to care much whether thousands of blameless developers’ livelihoods are impacted, just so that they can make a stronger move against Epic.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Ben Thompson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The problem for Epic — and, I suppose, for me — is that to this observer it seems exceedingly likely that Apple is going to win this case, last night’s decision notwithstanding. Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is very clear that businesses — including monopolies — have no duty to deal with third parties, and if they do choose to deal with them (or are even compelled to), that they can choose the terms on which to do so. The only exceptions are if the monopoly in question changes the rules in an unprofitable way with the express purpose of driving out a competitor, or if any company — not even a monopoly — changes access to after-market parts and services.<\/p>\n

In short, what is needed are new laws<\/a> built for the Internet, which is why it was encouraging<\/a> that Congress is holding hearings about these issues, and also frustrating<\/a> that Apple received relatively little attention.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Here is what I believe the App Store has fundamentally wrong: its current organizing principle is digital versus analog; anything that is digital has to have in-app purchase, while anything that is analog — i.e. connected to the real world — can monetize however it pleases. […] The better organizing principle is whether or not the app developer has marginal costs.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Michael Love<\/a>:<\/p>\n

There’s a lot of good stuff in here, but I have to take issue with the idea of allowing external \/ lower-commission purchases if an app has ‘marginal costs’; while a reasonable principle in theory, I think it would be completely impossible to apply in practice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Dave Wood<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The obvious answer is just to move iOS to a macOS like system but it’s just as obvious Apple isn’t willing to do that. My proposal is a compromise that I believe offers a fair direction forward for all parties involved.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

More than that, my biggest complaint with Apple is the power they have to decide if another company should be allowed to provide their product\/service. They are able to block any app that competes with them (now<\/a> or in the future<\/a>), is innovative in any way<\/a> Apple hadn’t considered, or that goes against their values<\/a>. Apple shouldn’t be allowed to project their values onto their customers.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

The key difference being that Apple accepts anything that isn’t illegal or a valid security issue, but not every accepted app gets listed in the App Store. An app that has been accepted, but excluded from the store can be installed by a user that has a direct link provided by Apple upon approval. Side note: this gives Apple a great opportunity to optimize the App Store since they can remove the millions of junk\/neglected apps and only present the best apps to users.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n