Apple asks court to stay part of the Epic Games lawsuit injunction
Apple has told the court it is complying with one part of an injunction it received following the Epic Games App Store trial, as the company attempts to delay implementing other elements of the ruling.
Following the September ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Epic-Apple lawsuit, Apple appealed and asked for a stay on the injunction in early October. In a new filing to the court, Apple says it's done some of what the court asked, but still wants the rest of it put on hold.
These changes have included updating the anti-steering provisions in its developer guidelines, providing more flexibility in contacting users and in advertising to users of alternative payment methods. However, Apple has yet to change rules relating to external linking or metadata buttons for external payment mechanisms.
The Friday court filing seen by iMore mentions that Apple has complied with part of the injunction, and reiterated it has already appealed to stay the remainder of the injunction. According to Apple, "the immediate implementation of that aspect of the injunction would upset the integrity of the iOS ecosystem."
Apple reckons that since the court said that Apple's requirements for making users use in-app purchases for selling digital content was OK, eliminating restrictions on in-app messaging would effectively work against it. Removing the limits would "force Apple to make its intellectual property available without compensation, and lessen the security and privacy afforded to customers."
It is further claimed that the injunction wouldn't make it through a review, since Epic Games doesn't have any standing to secure or enforce an injunction due to a lack of a developer account and no products in the App Store.
As a stay would not theoretically harm Epic due to a lack of an account, Apple believes a stay in the remaining injunction elements should be in the public interest. What Apple has done to its developer rules show "that the company is working in good faith to improve consumers' access to information in a way that will preserve the integrity of the ecosystem."
If the court is unwilling to grant a full stay, Apple insists a temporary stay be implemented instead, at least while the Ninth Circuit can hear Apple's appeal.
On October 23, Epic opposed Apple's earlier appeal, saying such a stay shouldn't be allowed as Apple doesn't meet the legal standard of demonstrating it faces irreparable harm in compliance. Epic's claims include Apple's comments post-trial saying the ruling was positive in nature, as well as Apple's delay in filing a request to stay the injunction.
A hearing to discuss Apple's appeal, and other matters, is set to occur on November 9. The company has until December 9 to implement the full injunction.
Read on AppleInsider
Following the September ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Epic-Apple lawsuit, Apple appealed and asked for a stay on the injunction in early October. In a new filing to the court, Apple says it's done some of what the court asked, but still wants the rest of it put on hold.
These changes have included updating the anti-steering provisions in its developer guidelines, providing more flexibility in contacting users and in advertising to users of alternative payment methods. However, Apple has yet to change rules relating to external linking or metadata buttons for external payment mechanisms.
The Friday court filing seen by iMore mentions that Apple has complied with part of the injunction, and reiterated it has already appealed to stay the remainder of the injunction. According to Apple, "the immediate implementation of that aspect of the injunction would upset the integrity of the iOS ecosystem."
Apple reckons that since the court said that Apple's requirements for making users use in-app purchases for selling digital content was OK, eliminating restrictions on in-app messaging would effectively work against it. Removing the limits would "force Apple to make its intellectual property available without compensation, and lessen the security and privacy afforded to customers."
It is further claimed that the injunction wouldn't make it through a review, since Epic Games doesn't have any standing to secure or enforce an injunction due to a lack of a developer account and no products in the App Store.
As a stay would not theoretically harm Epic due to a lack of an account, Apple believes a stay in the remaining injunction elements should be in the public interest. What Apple has done to its developer rules show "that the company is working in good faith to improve consumers' access to information in a way that will preserve the integrity of the ecosystem."
If the court is unwilling to grant a full stay, Apple insists a temporary stay be implemented instead, at least while the Ninth Circuit can hear Apple's appeal.
On October 23, Epic opposed Apple's earlier appeal, saying such a stay shouldn't be allowed as Apple doesn't meet the legal standard of demonstrating it faces irreparable harm in compliance. Epic's claims include Apple's comments post-trial saying the ruling was positive in nature, as well as Apple's delay in filing a request to stay the injunction.
A hearing to discuss Apple's appeal, and other matters, is set to occur on November 9. The company has until December 9 to implement the full injunction.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
There is a reason I expect you are not a lawyer. In no sense of the word is Apple a legal monopoly.
It would be nice if emoji posted by an Apple browser, Safari, from an Apple platform, iOS / iPhone, rendered correctly on Apple Insider.
Here you have Apple using it's full legal might to wage war on a major game producer.
How do you get one while very publicly pounding away at the other?
Hopefully we all enjoy Chess and iDevice games adapted (or not) to also play on Macs.
Good partnering... good win:win... where gaming companies clearly see a very profitable way to spend their limited time & coding resources on Apple Silicon seems key to the "gaming company" want. Else, there are much more lucrative, much larger markets for big games.
I suspect the gaming company PR is going to be like the "central hub for television" spin from years back. It reads/sounds great but then, in the execution, (as one major source of TV programming explained it), "Apple wants everything and leaves nothing for [their partners]." And thus that hub thing devolved into what it has... and entities like YouTube, Sling, etc have taken the big bites of that concept. Why? Perhaps because they offer the content creators more money than they can make by "giving it all to Apple"?
Riddle me this: under such circumstances, why would the majors WANT to develop big games on Apple Silicon?
It's called money...
Apple is a monopoly on Apple Arcade. That’s just how these idiots are things.
Yet Netflix isn’t a monopoly on Netflix and Wal Mart isn’t a monopoly of Wal Mart.
but Apple is a monopoly for their services.
Courts have to follow precedent not go off into their own little world.
Otherwise, when the "relevant market" are consumers that buy "Big Mac" burgers, McDonalds can be sued for having a monopoly on "Big Mac" burgers and that's why "Big Mac" burgers are only available in a McDonalds. Plus McDonalds do not allow third parties like BK, to sell (or even advertise) their "Whoppers" inside a McDonalds, to McDonalds customers.
Here's a very good write-up on how the courts ruled on this Epic/Apple case and why. And anyone with an ounce of understanding on how anti-trust laws works, will know that the Judge could not have ruled in any other way, when it comes to Epic claim of Apple having a monopoly.
https://www.lit-antitrust.shearman.com/Northern-District-Of-California-Finds-That-Antitrust-Claims-Against-Technology-Platform
Notice that the one ruling against Apple, pertaining to CA Unfair Competition Law is vague. CA UCL is a catch all and the courts can interpret what they see as "unfair" practices, as a violation of CA UCL. There is no written part of the CA UCL and dictates that it's unfair competition for an entity to not allow competitors to advertise within their own stores. That is just what Judge Gonzales interpret as "unfair" when Apple do not allow developers to advertise and provide a link to a competing payment system in order to avoid paying Apple commission.
Thus while Epic nearly has no chance of winning on appeal, base on the argument they brought forth and current anti-trust laws as written. Apple stands a good chance of winning, as the Judge ruling pertaining to CA UCL, might be way overboard with regards to the original intention and reach, of CA UCL.
Hoeg Law (an actual Lawyer) went through the case as it happened in Epic v Apple: Just the Trial and in the last part of that series (Epic v Apple: Judgment Day - Who Won? Who Lost? ...and Why? (VL538)) he effectively lambasted the way the majority of the media reported the ruling via their headlines. Of those he presented only IGN got it right. He also points out that the Judge's one ruling for Epic is on shaky ground because it is not "black letter law" - it is an interpretation of a vague law and felt it was "most likely to suffer on appeal". If he is right than Apple likely will get its injunction and Epic will continue to court shop (as it did by going to Australia even though the contract Epic agreed to expressly stated all litigation must occur in the Northern District of California.
Given Epic has lost all but one point and Apple was appealing the ruling that the Australia case could go forward that case may get thrown out.