carnegie
About
- Username
- carnegie
- Joined
- Visits
- 213
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 3,613
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,085
Reactions
-
Apple fires back in Epic Games 'Fortnite' saga, seeks damages for breach of contract
The termination letter which Apple sent Epic was included as an exhibit in one of Epic's court filings.Rayz2016 said:
Have you got a statement from Apple about the year-long ban? This is the se ind time I’ve heard this, and I still can’t find the original link for it.carnegie said:
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.22july2013 said:Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.63.8.pdf
-
Apple fires back in Epic Games 'Fortnite' saga, seeks damages for breach of contract
I'm not sure who responded "Why would Apple ever do that?" But I was addressing the legal aspect of your question. For now Apple could refuse to let Fortnite back on the App Store. But it's possible that the judge will order it to let Fortnite back on the App Store if Epic brings the app into compliance.22july2013 said:
Thanks. I was making a point, and I guess I made it successfully. My question was both rhetorical and legal. But some people here missed my point and instead responded "Why would Apple ever do that?" Indeed, I would even go so far as to say I was implying that Apple *should* hold a grudge against Epic and refuse to let either Epic's software or apps that use Epic's SDK on the App Store. Even if Apple prefers to forgive and forget, my point is that Apple is permitted to say "buh bye."DAalseth said:
That's a darn good question. Could Walmart just chose to not carry Samsung TVs? Could Target just chose not to carry Levi Jeans? I want to say yes, it's a private store and in the end they should be able to say what they do or don't want to carry, and they don't have to give a reason.22july2013 said:
The court was considering, but rejected, the idea of putting fortnite back on the store with the alternate payment system. It was not considering forcing the product back on the store if the alternate payment system was removed. I was talking about a different scenario entirely. Your second paragraph is a completely new news item to me. I find your point fascinating. I’m going to see if I can confirm that.carnegie said:
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.22july2013 said:Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
My question remains: can Apple stop a third-party software developer from using the App Store if it simply doesn’t like the developer? Similarly, could Walmart refuse to sell Samsung products just because they don’t like Samsung?
Using Epic's logic should Proctor and Gamble demand Costco carry their many products but NOT take a cut because you could pick up a package of TidePods and pay over the air with your phone to P&Gs online store and skip the line? I'd say the premise is absurd. This gets back to Epic's core argument that the AppStore is a monopoly and the government should force Apple to carry anyone's product for free. It's an argument that I didn't agree with when first advanced and the more this unfolds, the more vacuous it seems.
If a company had an employee that was bad-mouthing them on social media, the company would certainly be allowed to fire that employee. This sort of thing happens all the time. Freedom of speech in the US applies only to US state and federal governments restricting the free speech of others. Keeping critics like Epic off Apple's store would be akin to firing them, and perfectly legal. And, on a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Epic's egregiousness at around 5. This isn't a 10 out of 10 on the evil scale. What Epic did was no secret and it wasn't theft, so I'm only calling it a 5, and barely that. But you can fire someone for anything above a 0.
The CEO of Facebook has been criticizing Apple lately. In my books, Apple should be allowed to ban Facebook's apps for that reason. I remember Jobs once saying, "That's not our style." I think that's very noble and magnanimous of Apple to let critics generally stay on their app store. Apple's reputation is golden as far as I'm concerned here. Actually, the fact that Apple is launching a counter suit against Epic proves that even their magnanimity has its limits.
Apple doesn't hold grudges, and I'm glad you don't, because I think I disagreed with you a few days ago on something. You should be allowed to ignore me or fire me because we disagreed, but you are being magnanimous, like Apple tends to be.
More generally, businesses often can refuse to do business with certain entities - would be customers or other businesses. But in many circumstances they can't refuse to. As with so many legal issues, the why can be important. Apple generally could refuse to let a developer like Epic develop and distribute apps through the App Store. But there are reasons which Apple might have for doing that which wouldn't be allowed and a court might order it to not do that. In this situation, if Apple is ultimately found to have violated antitrust laws (which is a possible, though I don't think that should happen), it likely wouldn't be able to refuse to let Fortnite back on the App Store. It can't, e.g., use monopoly power anticompetitively. -
Apple fires back in Epic Games 'Fortnite' saga, seeks damages for breach of contract
I'm aware of what Apple previously said and what the judge wrote in her TRO order. But the situation has changed since then. When Apple terminated Epic's ('84) developer account it said "please note that we will deny your reapplication to the Apple Developer Program for at least a year considering the nature of your acts." Apple could, of course, change its mind and reinstate the ('84) account or otherwise let Fortnite back on the App Store. The judge could also order Apple to do that if Epic brings Fortnite into compliance with Apple's rules. But as it stands, Epic can't just fix Fortnite and have it back on the App Store.chasm said:
ACTUALLY, Apple said at the court hearing (which, to be fair, was before pulling the dev license) that it would gladly put Fortnite back on the App Store as soon as Epic submits an update that doesn't violate their contract. Things may have changed since then since the judge essentially told Epic they caused the issue, which I interpret as "don't look to me for help when there's a clear remedy" and I would lay large money on Epic not getting the injunction they are looking for.carnegie said:
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.22july2013 said:Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.Contract law is pretty straightforward, which is why Epic is going to lose this particular battle -- and Apple knows it. If Epic actually did undo the illegal "fake fix" and restore Fortnite to the last legal version, Apple would probably ignore it for a couple of days but then restore their dev license and publish the updates -- after extracting a promise that iOS users will get the same updates as everyone else until the court battle is resolved. Apple has a very clear and unequivocal upper hand here: their contract with Epic is not illegal or invalid, it's entirely legal and enforceable. Epic willingly broke the contract without cause. Apple has followed its documented procedures for dealing with the agreement breach. Emotionally, there's a lot going on there -- but legally, there's no case Epic can make: 100 percent of the "harm" they're suffering is self-inflicted.
That said, the antitrust issues are more complicated than I think a lot of people appreciate. I don't think Apple should be considered to have monopoly power in a relevant market or that it should be found to have used that power improperly. But it very well could. Epic has plausible arguments in this case. Based on case law (which we can get further into if you want) Apple could be found to have monopoly power in an antitrust aftermarket defined as iOS app distribution. And it could be found to have used that power in anticompetitive ways. It's also possible, though I think less likely, that the IAP market could be considered a separate antitrust market and Apple could be found to have illegally tied those separate markets.
Contrary to what some seem to think, a company can be found to have monopoly power in a single brand market (e.g. iOS app distribution). There are substantial showings which have to be made to establish such a market as a relevant antitrust market. But it's possible. And Apple's situation is of the kind in which that might be established. From there, if iOS is considered a relevant antitrust market, showing that Apple has used its monopoly power in that market anticompetitively would, I think, be the easier part of the argument.
-
Apple fires back in Epic Games 'Fortnite' saga, seeks damages for breach of contract
In the earlier TRO hearing, the court didn't need to consider whether Apple had to allow Fortnite back on the App Store if Epic made the app compliant. Epic didn't ask the court to order that because that wasn't, at that time, an issue. And it was clear that Apple would allow Fortnite back on the App Store if Epic made it compliant. That was before Apple terminated the ('84) developer account.22july2013 said:
The court was considering, but rejected, the idea of putting fortnite back on the store with the alternate payment system. It was not considering forcing the product back on the store if the alternate payment system was removed. I was talking about a different scenario entirely. Your second paragraph is a completely new news item to me. I find your point fascinating. I’m going to see if I can confirm that.carnegie said:
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.22july2013 said:Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
My question remains: can Apple stop a third-party software developer from using the App Store if it simply doesn’t like the developer? Similarly, could Walmart refuse to sell Samsung products just because they don’t like Samsung?
In this recent motion for perlimanry injunction, one of the things Epic is asking the court to order Apple do is to effectively reinstate Epic's ('84) developer account. That is a separate ask from ordering Apple to allow Fortnite back on the App Store even while it isn't complaint. The court could, but hasn't yet, order Apple to reinstate that account even if the court doesn't order Apple to allow Fortnite back with the alternate payment method. So Apple could effectively be ordered to allow Fortnite back on the App Store if it is made compliant.
As indicated, the court could order Apple to do what you asked about. But it hasn't yet done so. So Apple isn't required to do that.
As for your more general question: It might depend on the circumstances, but generally speaking yes. Apple could do what it wanted unless and until a court told it that it couldn't.
-
Apple fires back in Epic Games 'Fortnite' saga, seeks damages for breach of contract
The court may order it to, but as of now it has not so ordered Apple.22july2013 said:Is Apple required to let Epic back on the store even if Epic relents and wants to pay 30%?
Apple has informed Epic that it will deny a reapplication (by Epic) for at least a year. So at this point, Epic doesn't have the option to just undo the hotfix and make Fortnite compliant.
