Sweeney tweets: "Opening iOS and Android up as truly open platforms with a genuinely level playing field between first party and third party apps and stores is the only way to ensure a competitive, healthy, and fair app economy.".In this endeavor, Epic won't seek nor accept a special deal just for ourselves." To me, this means: All iOS developers are free to process payments directly, all users are free to install software from any source. Sweeney quote tweets The Washington Post's story: "Here Apple speaks of a level playing field.Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney tells The Washington Post that "the iOS App Store's monopoly protects only Apple profit, not device security.".In what appears to have been an orchestrated move, Epic Games promptly filed a lawsuit against Apple, accusing the company of anti-competitive actions.īelow, we've put together a timeline of the Epic Games vs. In August 2020, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store after Epic Games introduced a direct payment option in the app for its in-game currency V-Bucks, defying the App Store rules. One particularly vocal critic has been Fortnite creator Epic Games, which has repeatedly referred to the App Store as a monopoly. The Epic lawsuit is a marathon, not a sprint, so Epic has plenty of time to set things right.Apple has faced increasing scrutiny over its App Store practices from both developers and regulators in recent months. However, if Epic wants to maximize its chance for success, its first step should be to rebuild its credibility. Apple coming out ahead in this initial heat will hold no bearing on the overall outcome of the case. In other words, Epic Games lost not because it was wrong, but because it has not yet proven it is right. This is not to say the case is over - the court noted several times that the case is in its early stages, that its findings are preliminary, and that its decision was based on the lack of a factual record. Indeed, there is even a strong argument to be had that the court’s decision to deny Epic its preliminary injunction was the direct result of Epic’s lack of credibility, since it supported the court’s conclusion that the harm Epic suffers “is of its own choosing.” Epic Games v. The fact that the court opted to do so here means that it will be much harder for Epic Games to succeed. Judges rarely question the credibility of attorneys in written decisions, and they do so even less frequently at such an early stage. In the abstract, these admonishments might not seem like much, but in the context of ongoing litigation, this is huge. But looking past the obvious, there is one aspect of the opinion that has been overlooked by other commentators - and that has significant implications for the case as it goes forward. At the most basic level, the case was a loss for Epic - the court questioned the viability of its claims and denied Epic’s request for judicial intervention. The court concluded that Epic failed to show that it was likely to succeed at trial and also failed to show that it would suffer any “irreparable harm” (i.e., it concluded that if Apple lost, Apple could pay Epic to account for any damage caused in the interim). The decision itself is straightforward and actually a pretty interesting read - even for non-lawyers. Last week, the court issued a 39-page decision denying that request. Because the case won’t go to trial until next spring (at the earliest), Epic Games asked the court to require Apple to return Fortnite to the App Store for the eight or more months between now and then.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |