Epic Games files to appeal ruling in Apple lawsuit

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 12
Epic Games has filed its appeal to the September 10 ruling in its lawsuit against Apple, asking for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to revisit the case.




Filed on Sunday, the appeal of the ruling is brief, consisting of a single paragraph, with the bulk of its 20-page length devoted to representation statements. As before, the plaintiff and counter-defendant is listed as Epic Games, while Apple takes the role of defendant and counterclaimant.

The short appeal is a notice that Epic "appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the final Judgment entered on September 10, 2021, and all orders leading to or producing that judgment, including but not limited to the Rule 52 Order After Trial on the Merits and the Permanent Injunction, each entered on the same date."

The brevity of the appeal doesn't offer any real hint as to what Epic is specifically appealing, but an appeal was expected to occur regardless of the result in court due to the sizes of the companies and the finances involved.

Just after the ruling was issued, Epic said it would appeal the court's decision. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney also posted to Twitter "We will fight on."

The ruling is one that caused both sides to incur a cost. For Apple, an injunction effectively requires it to allow alternative payment methods for apps in the App Store, though the ruling did say that Apple wasn't a monopoly in the market, and that Epic did breach contractual terms.

Epic largely failed in its bid to force Apple into allowing a third-party App Store to exist on iOS, but the change in payment terms is likely to be beneficial to developers in general.

The game company also has to pay Apple 30% of the $12 million in revenue it collected through Epic Direct Payment, as well as 30% of any revenue collected relevant to iOS through November 1 to the date of judgment, plus interest.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    So they appealed the permanent injunction issued to Apple as well? Nice! Saves them the trouble. Hoping a stay can be granted for the couple of years it takes for appeals to be exhausted, and only then will the anti-steering provisions be removed.
    skippingrockwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 37
    Epic would rather spend their money on pursuing this legally than improving their games.
    “… though the ruling did say that Apple wasn't a monopoly in the market, and that Epic did breach contractual terms.”

    Who is getting screwed here!??

    SMH!
    edited September 12 watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 37
    Epic is going to try to gaslight the court big time. I hope they fail big time.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 37
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,812member
    For those saying this was a big defeat for Apple (*cough*cultofmac*cough) look at the reaction of the parties. Apple is saying their model was vindicated and Epic is appealing. 
    jeffharriswilliamlondonpujones1damankaskillroyapplguyblastdoorGeorgeBMacigorskywatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 37
    though the ruling did say that Apple wasn't a monopoly in the market”

    I don’t think it did…

    The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.”

    </pedant>


    elijahg
  • Reply 6 of 37
    Chinese commie agent Epic and Tim Sweenie needs to be beaten to the pulp! Go Tim Apple!
    killroyKTRspock1234igorskywatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 37
    aderutter said:
    “though the ruling did say that Apple wasn't a monopoly in the market”

    I don’t think it did…

    ”The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.”

    </pedant>


    The court also does not find it impossible that Aliens can exist or Epic is not doing this without Chinese communists .

    Point is that is as close to a court can say somebody is not a monopoly after a 4 week trial
    spock1234sdw2001watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 37
    Apple right now can not only continue banning Fortnite from App Store but can also ban all unreal engine accounts. Basically Apple
    can end Epic Mobile based on the ruling.

    bur oh yeah, Epic won lol…
    thtspock1234blastdoorwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 37
    I’ve really hit my limit with this case. Epic wants to make more money. Period. That is the plain and simple fact. They don’t care about monopolistic behavior—Apple and Epic don’t even move in the same spaces; at least not enough for a legal case of this size. Everything about Epic at this point, from this lawsuit down to their douche bag company name, even their mutant CEO’s face, is a major turnoff and I will absolutely no longer be buying their products. How about make better games, Epic? I feel badly for their developers who have to get dragged with this lawsuit. Such a waste. 
    williamlondonskippingrockscout6900mikeybabeskillroyspock1234geekmeewatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 37
    Agreed Mrd10.  Well said.  
    killroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 37
    What's weird is most of the media, mainstream and tech blogs, are heralding this as an "epic" loss for Apple by highlighting the 1 out of 10 claims Apple lost, at the same time noting nothing about how 9 is greater than 1 in order to sensationalise the whole ruling. Of course many readers are too stupid to realise the hypocrisy here when Epic appeals so quickly their own "big win."
    killroymwhitedanoxspock1234aderuttergeekmeewatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 37
    I don’t know who will win in the end. But it seems the lawyers is laughing all the way to the bank. 
    killroyKTRgeekmeewatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 37
    aderutter said:
    “though the ruling did say that Apple wasn't a monopoly in the market”

    I don’t think it did…

    ”The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.”

    </pedant>


    Innocent until proven guilty? Or guilty until proven otherwise?
    williamlondonmwhitespock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 37
    What's weird is most of the media, mainstream and tech blogs, are heralding this as an "epic" loss for Apple by highlighting the 1 out of 10 claims Apple lost, at the same time noting nothing about how 9 is greater than 1 in order to sensationalise the whole ruling. Of course many readers are too stupid to realise the hypocrisy here when Epic appeals so quickly their own "big win."
    I don't think most of the media really understood the verdicts in the ten counts.

    The one count that Epic won doesn't automatically result in Apple's App Store 30% cut going to the developer. All is does it require Apple to provide a way for third-party developers to include a hyperlink or button to a third-party payment option.

    Joe Consumer isn't going to follow that link and do the extra steps to complete payment. They will let the Apple App Store handle payment because that's the most convenient. If you wanted to buy something on Amazon, how keen would you be visiting some offsite payment processor to complete the action?

    Epic knows that this isn't consumer friendly hence their appeal resulting the halting of the permanent injunction.
    edited September 12 killroyspock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 37
    mrd10 said:
    I’ve really hit my limit with this case. Epic wants to make more money. Period. That is the plain and simple fact. They don’t care about monopolistic behavior—Apple and Epic don’t even move in the same spaces; at least not enough for a legal case of this size. Everything about Epic at this point, from this lawsuit down to their douche bag company name, even their mutant CEO’s face, is a major turnoff and I will absolutely no longer be buying their products. How about make better games, Epic? I feel badly for their developers who have to get dragged with this lawsuit. Such a waste. 
    Is this about Epic as a game company or is it more about Chinese interest v Apple. Many times in life the front facing servants get the blame for carrying out instructions of the shadow Govt? Just a question 
    spock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 37
    geekmee said:
    Epic would rather spend their money on pursuing this legally than improving their games.
    “… though the ruling did say that Apple wasn't a monopoly in the market, and that Epic did breach contractual terms.”

    Who is getting screwed here!??

    SMH!
    Shake your head all you want. Fortnite made $2.5 billion last year. They have plenty of money to invest and use wherever they want. Epic knows exactly what they are doing. $3.5 million payment to Apple is a joke.
    williamlondonelijahgwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 37
    danoxdanox Posts: 676member
    tommikele said:
    geekmee said:
    Epic would rather spend their money on pursuing this legally than improving their games.
    “… though the ruling did say that Apple wasn't a monopoly in the market, and that Epic did breach contractual terms.”

    Who is getting screwed here!??

    SMH!
    Shake your head all you want. Fortnite made $2.5 billion last year. They have plenty of money to invest and use wherever they want. Epic knows exactly what they are doing. $3.5 million payment to Apple is a joke.
    The joke is on Epic when Apple takes a greater interest in writing game engines and taking a real interest in game graphics now that they have their own in house cpu. Intel down check, Qualcomm modems soon to be replaced check and now game engines on the list due to Epic, with Stream in the background saying leave the beast alone.
    spock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 37
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,433member
    mpantone said:
    What's weird is most of the media, mainstream and tech blogs, are heralding this as an "epic" loss for Apple by highlighting the 1 out of 10 claims Apple lost, at the same time noting nothing about how 9 is greater than 1 in order to sensationalise the whole ruling. Of course many readers are too stupid to realise the hypocrisy here when Epic appeals so quickly their own "big win."
    I don't think most of the media really understood the verdicts in the ten counts.

    The one count that Epic won doesn't automatically result in Apple's App Store 30% cut going to the developer. All is does it require Apple to provide a way for third-party developers to include a hyperlink or button to a third-party payment option.

    Joe Consumer isn't going to follow that link and do the extra steps to complete payment. They will let the Apple App Store handle payment because that's the most convenient. If you wanted to buy something on Amazon, how keen would you be visiting some offsite payment processor to complete the action?

    Epic knows that this isn't consumer friendly hence their appeal resulting the halting of the permanent injunction.
    Yes - The general interpretation of the ruling is that Apple is going to lose their 30% App Store revenue stream. The question of side-loading apps was largely ignored or missed. It is noteworthy that Apple's stock dropped right after the ruling, although only by about 3%. 

    I don't know how much of an effect this will have. 30% is not a small amount; if a developer charges $50 on the App Store and then puts a link saying you can get the software for $35 I bet a lot of people will click the link.

    In the end, Epic filing an appeal simply puts off any changes so Apple gets to keep the status quo. I'm sure that suits Apple just fine!
    edited September 12 spock1234watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 37
    Would be nice to see apple stop supporting the code Fortnight uses to run on iOS… much like they did with Flash !!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 37
    Epic wanted to use their own purchase mechanism in-app. This ruling does not allow that. It allows links to external purchase mechanisms. So people can pay in a web browser out of app.

    There are 3 technologically possible payment mechanisms, Apple in-app, non-apple in-app, and external. The first and last of these is now possible, the non-apple in-app that got Epic booted is still off the table.

    Nothing in the ruling prevents Apple from updating the developer agrrements to state that:

    1) all links to external purchase for items used in-app must be priced the same as an Apple in-app option.

    2) that Apple is still entitled to compensation for their I.P. via all items purchased for use in the app, regardless of the payment mechanism used, Apple in-app or external. 

    3) all external  app purchases must be logged via a new accounting API so Apple can bill them monthly.

    I do think Apple might reduce their commission for all purchases made external to the app as this would emphasise that a large chunk of the commission is to pay for hosting, distribution, marketing etc. not just payment processing.

    I think most media dont understand the nuances of this ruling. Apple will not have a significant loss of revenue. 

    I would still prefer it if there were no free apps, and the minimum tier was $4.99 then Apple wouldnt need a cut of in-app purchases. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.