Apple Bans Fortnite Until Appeals Are Exhausted in Legal Fight (bloomberg.com) 74
Apple plans to keep Fortnite off of its App Store until appeals are exhausted in its legal battle with Epic Games, the maker of the popular battle-royale game. From a report: Apple sent a letter to Epic Tuesday saying that it "will not consider any further requests for reinstatement until the district court's judgment becomes final and nonappealable." The letter, sent to Epic's lawyers from a firm representing Apple, was published on Twitter by Epic Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney. That process could take five years, he said. Epic sued Apple in August 2020 after the iPhone-maker removed Fortnite from its App Store, citing a workaround that circumvented Apple's commission on purchases.
USA only? what about outside the USA? (Score:2)
USA only? what about outside the USA? where the courts are differnt?
Re:USA only? what about outside the USA? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Epic will need to bring it up in those other countries.
America is its biggest market, trying to put a ton of money for win in some smaller country probably wouldn't be cost effective.
This is a video game for entertainment purposes (Mostly targeted towards kids and young adults), that is having a fit, because they don't want to reach a deal with a hardware vendor. This is really a first world problem, I am not defending Apple, just that other countries may not really care enough for a court case, and may w
Re: USA only? what about outside the USA? (Score:1)
Everyone seems to forget epic has a massive games store and that is what this is really about
They only mention fortnite so Betty sue Karen knows what an epic is
Re: (Score:3)
So a McDonald not allowing a side booth, for Burger King in its building.
But it is still just Games. While in the US the size of these companies may make it a priority, other countries wouldn't give too much of a care about their fighting, because it isn't really impacting them or their laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia has their own lawsuits going on [cnet.com]. There is also something happening in South Korea.
What did they expect? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Given Sweeney's underhanded dealings with Apple from the get-go, as an Apple Shareholder I'd be fine for Apple to permanently refuse to do business with Epic and write off that income as an ethical decision. (If Sweeney et.al. had been less sneaky about both their campaign plan on Apple store fees and the under-the-table execution, I'd be less hard-over on telling him to take a long walk off the short pier. Listening to Sweeney claim to be looking for the 'little developer' when his initial request was fo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Epic broke their contract terms in bad faith and lost in court. I wouldn't be in any hurry to let them back in either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the exception of the term that the judge found illegal, Epic broke their contract terms only in the same way that 99.9% of developers do. And contrary to your belief, Epic won in court. It was a pyrrhic victory, because the judge screwed up and issued a ruling that contradicts itself, simultaneously punishing Apple for an illegal contract term and punishing Epic for violating it, so it's begging for Epic to overturn the damages against them on appeal, but that's another matter.
Re:What did they expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
because the judge screwed up and issued a ruling that contradicts itself, simultaneously punishing Apple for an illegal contract term and punishing Epic for violating it
The ruling is not at all contradictory.
You don't get to break a contract because you think one of its terms are illegal. You have to keep following the contract while you sue.
So yes, Epic did indeed do something wrong and owes Apple for it.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
because the judge screwed up and issued a ruling that contradicts itself, simultaneously punishing Apple for an illegal contract term and punishing Epic for violating it
The ruling is not at all contradictory.
You don't get to break a contract because you think one of its terms are illegal. You have to keep following the contract while you sue.
No. That's not a correct understanding of contract law [upcounsel.com], at least in the United States.
Re:What did they expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your link is talking about clauses in a contract that are significantly different. For example, you can ignore a "you must racially discriminate" clause, because there's a law that makes that illegal.
There is no law that says "you can't require developers to pay through your app store".
To make that clause illegal, a judge had to rule that the practice was anticompetitive enough to break the laws against anticompetitive behavior. Before a judge made that determination, it was legal. And it would still be legal for someone not in Apple's market position to have a clause like that, provided they were nowhere as dominant as Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Your link is talking about clauses in a contract that are significantly different. For example, you can ignore a "you must racially discriminate" clause, because there's a law that makes that illegal.
There is no law that says "you can't require developers to pay through your app store".
The judge ruled that the policy violated California's unfair competition laws, so at least in the context of this particular contract, that term was found to be illegal.
To make that clause illegal, a judge had to rule that the practice was anticompetitive enough to break the laws against anticompetitive behavior. Before a judge made that determination, it was legal.
No, before a judge made that determination, it was presumptively legal. That's not the same thing.
And it would still be legal for someone not in Apple's market position to have a clause like that, provided they were nowhere as dominant as Apple.
Correct, but moot. In the context of this contract, the term was ruled to be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge ruled that the policy violated California's unfair competition laws
And those laws do not say "You can't require everyone to use your app store". They say you can't do anticompetitive behavior, and requires a ruling on a particular behavior being anticompetitive.
Until that ruling, it's legal.
No, before a judge made that determination, it was presumptively legal. That's not the same thing.
Which means you can't just break the contract over it. You have to follow the contract until a judge rules on it.
Re: (Score:2)
> The judge ruled that the policy violated California's unfair competition laws > And those laws do not say
Doesn't matter what you think are the preconditions for legality (eg what you think the laws says). The judge made a ruling. Stare decisis applies here.
The judge made a ruling that directly contradicts itself. One of the two parts of that decision must be overturned on appeal, because the current decision is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The ruling didn't contrad
Re: (Score:2)
And contrary to your belief, Epic won in court.
Or, to quote the actual document,
https://www.courtlistener.com/... [courtlistener.com]
the Court finds in favor of Apple on all counts except with respect to violation of California’s Unfair Competition law (Count Ten) and only partially 666 See Dkt. No. 474 3. 180 with respect to its claim for Declaratory Relief
Yep, that's exactly what the Judge would say to show that Epic won. You just have to read between the lines *wink wink*
Re:What did they expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Visit any high school or college campus, and you'll realize how absolutely wrong that statement is. Epic's battle with Apple is a giant "don't care" to the overwhelming majority of iPhone owners. NOBODY is switching to Android because they can't play an Epic game anymore.
In the grand scheme of things, Fortnite is just another Angry Birds or Farmville. Today's must-play game is tomorrow's dim memory. There are a hundred thousand competing games grabbing for the eyeballs and attention of iPhone owners. Fortnite isn't even missed.
Re: (Score:2)
The point being, how many future 25 crowd will want an iDevice knowing that a) Epic is not on there and won't be on for a considerable amount of time. b) Apple, in all their high-and-mighty wisdom could do the same for any other game or app publisher/developer rendering their platform a brick amongst friends?
Epic signed a contract.
Epic decided to break that contract.
You're mad at Apple for Epic's actions.
Also, you seem utterly unaware of Epic's actions on the PC, where "oh no! I can't play an Epic exclusive" isn't exactly a deal-breaker.
Also, you vastly overestimate the number of people who want to play Fortnite on a phone. It's about the shittiest possible way to play that game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
as an ethical decision
ethics aren't a relevant factor for neither apple nor epic. as an "Apple Shareholder" you should be very aware of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
play stupid games...
Re: (Score:3)
"You dig your own grave, now you got to lie in it."
Honestly, this was something completely expected. It actually gives Apple more leverage over them, because Apple can actively prevent Unreal engine development on OSX/iOS/iPadOS/tvOS, etc.
I honestly hope this was worth it to Epic, because I don't think this was smart.
Could Epic get a court order? (Score:1)
Would it be possible for Epic to get a court order against this - some sort of temporary injunction forcing Apple to allow Epic back into the App Store? It might state that the potential damages to Epic are significant, and that Apple could attempt to claw back some revenue later if they receive a favorable ruling on appeal?
Re: (Score:1)
Why would they want to do that? No one is playing Fortnite on a phone or Epic would not have made a media spectacle out of this let alone a court case.
At the end of the day Epic is still a for profit company if this impacted sales it would not have happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Would it be possible for Epic to get a court order against this - some sort of temporary injunction forcing Apple to allow Epic back into the App Store? It might state that the potential damages to Epic are significant, and that Apple could attempt to claw back some revenue later if they receive a favorable ruling on appeal?
Why would a court issue an order against the court itself? The ruling explicitly upheld that:
Apple is not a monopoly
Epic has broken a contract
Apple was well within their rights to ban Epic for breaking the contract.
Re: (Score:1)
Would it be possible for Epic to get a court order against this - some sort of temporary injunction forcing Apple to allow Epic back into the App Store? It might state that the potential damages to Epic are significant, and that Apple could attempt to claw back some revenue later if they receive a favorable ruling on appeal?
Why would a court issue an order against the court itself? The ruling explicitly upheld that:
Apple is not a monopoly Epic has broken a contract Apple was well within their rights to ban Epic for breaking the contract.
It also upheld that the contract term was per se illegal, as a violation of California's unfair competition laws. It's unclear how a contract term can be simultaneously illegal, but I guess this is Shrödinger's court, where it is simultaneously legal and illegal until observed during appeal. :-)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be surprised. Effectively the court would be forcing Apple to accept back a user who wilfully broke the terms of their contract for financial gain. That's separate to decisions concerning the legality of those terms. Epic accepted the terms, which they didn't have to, and then wilfully breached them. It's not like Epic could make a hardship argument or claim the terms were not known to them at the time they signed-up.
Re: (Score:1)
That's separate to decisions concerning the legality of those terms.
And the court ruled that those terms were perfectly legal no matter how much Epic cries "monopoly!".
Re: (Score:1)
That's separate to decisions concerning the legality of those terms.
And the court ruled that those terms were perfectly legal no matter how much Epic cries "monopoly!".
No, it didn't, and no, it isn't. An illegal contract term cannot be binding, period. And the court ruled that the critical term — the ban on third-party payment systems — was illegal under California law.
The ruling, unfortunately, involved a judge who apparently didn't understand technology enough to realize that allowing third party payments without allowing unlocking functionality in response to those payments is per se nonsensical.
Re: Could Epic get a court order? (Score:2)
How do you figure that? Most of Epic's claims were ruled against. The only point that went against Apple was preventing alternative payment methods/storefronts. Epic was found liable to pay Apple for revenue obtained by sidestepping Apple's payment system.
The contract was not found to be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure that? Most of Epic's claims were ruled against. The only point that went against Apple was preventing alternative payment methods/storefronts. Epic was found liable to pay Apple for revenue obtained by sidestepping Apple's payment system.
The contract was not found to be illegal.
Reread what you just said. Apple was declared to have violated the law by preventing alternative payment methods, which is precisely what Epic is then being held liable for doing. So providing a third-party payment system is simultaneously both allowed and disallowed, and the contract term preventing it is simultaneously both illegal and legal — the same term in the same contract as applied to the same contractee.
This. Ruling. Makes. No. Sense.
Re: Could Epic get a court order? (Score:2)
The ruling may indeed not make sense. I'm no expert. I've reread my post, finding it comports with the ruling.
Conversely, what you're arguing makes sense only in a parallel universe in which Judge Gatwood ruled along the lines of the arguments made by the Dotslash user dgatwood.
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling may indeed not make sense. I'm no expert. I've reread my post, finding it comports with the ruling.
Conversely, what you're arguing makes sense only in a parallel universe in which Judge Gatwood ruled along the lines of the arguments made by the Dotslash user dgatwood.
The contract was, in fact, found to be illegal. That's why the judge ordered that Apple change that policy. A contract term, once found to be illegal in the context of a specific violation of a specific contract, is not enforceable, period. So no breach of contract can legally have occurred. This is fundamental to contract law.
This ruling simultaneously says that the term is enforceable for breach of contract purposes, but simultaneously finds that the term is illegal and orders Apple to allow the exact
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't ruled illegal. A single clause was found to be a violation (i.e. illegal). A single clause of a contract being illegal doesn't automatically render the entire contract null and void. It depends on the extent to which the contract hinges on the problematic clause, and there's certainly scope for debate in many cases.
The ruling considered the contract to be binding while also finding that this clause is ilegal. The judge said that she did not consider this clause justification for Epic's decisio
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't ruled illegal. A single clause was found to be a violation (i.e. illegal). A single clause of a contract being illegal doesn't automatically render the entire contract null and void. It depends on the extent to which the contract hinges on the problematic clause, and there's certainly scope for debate in many cases.
Of course it doesn't render the entire contract null and void. But it does make that term null and void.
The ruling considered the contract to be binding while also finding that this clause is ilegal. The judge said that she did not consider this clause justification for Epic's decision to breach the contract. That's how Epic ends up paying while Apple also ends up probably having to remove or rework that clause.
And that's the part that's nonsensical. Were that term not part of the contract, Epic's actions would not have been a breach of that contract. Whether the judge believes that the clause is grounds for breaching the contract is moot from a legal perspective, because if that contract term is illegal, then Epic didn't breach the contract. Period. This isn't a legal grey area here.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it didn't, and no, it isn't. An illegal contract term cannot be binding, period. And the court ruled that the critical term — the ban on third-party payment systems — was illegal under California law.
Except that the judge ruled otherwise. Specifically is said:
Epic Games argues that, even if its claims under the Sherman Act fail, it is nevertheless entitled to relief on its Cartwright Act claims because the Cartwright Act is broader in range and deeper in reach than the Sherman Act.622 Apple disagrees arguing that where, as here, Epic Games has not identified any specific and material differences between the Cartwright Act and the Sherman Act, plaintiff cannot prevail on a Cartwright Act where its claims fail under the Sherman Act. The Court agrees with Apple . . .
The ruling, unfortunately, involved a judge who apparently didn't understand technology enough to realize that allowing third party payments without allowing unlocking functionality in response to those payments is per se nonsensical.
So your assertion is the judge didn't "understand technology" instead of she ruled legally opposite to what you wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be possible for Epic to get a court order against this - some sort of temporary injunction forcing Apple to allow Epic back into the App Store?
What? The court just said to Epic "you lost, Apple can do what it wants in its own store because it's not a monopoly, go away". You think the court should... override the court?
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile in the real world: the only (ONE) count out of 10 EPIC won on isn't anywhere near close to being the road to getting reinstated on the App Store. The court has literally upheld that EPIC broke the contract and now have to deal with the consequences. Which means being and staying banned.
Re: (Score:2)
The one count of ten that Epic won on should have been enough to completely wipe Apple's ban on Epic. The only way it does not do so requires a very fundamental understanding of the technology involved, and is a procedural mistake on the judge's part that will be overturned on appeal unless the win is overturned instead.
There is no legal basis for reinstatement (Score:1)
The court has literally upheld that Apple is right and EPIC is wrong on 9 counts out of 10. The counts Apple won on include that (paraphrasing): "Apple is not a monopoly", "EPIC did breach a contract" and "Apple was entirely within their rights for banning EPIC for breaching said contract". The only win EPIC got is nowhere near a path to reinstatement to App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that matters. Regardless of any possible outcomes, everything is going to get appealed, all the way up to the Supreme Court (whether or not they'll grant a writ of certiorari is another story altogether), there's no real point in paying attention to these decisions.
Or just buy a better phone (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is an easy solution. Buy a different brand of phone next time.
Because of Fortnite? I don’t think so.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have no experience with junkies.
Re: Or just buy a better phone (Score:1)
No, because of freedom. That's a huge selling point to me.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because of freedom. That's a huge selling point to me.
And you think you'll find that freedom on Android?
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to vote with your wallet when there are only two options.
"Voting with your wallet" is effective when there is plenty of consumer choice. When there are only two options, then you don't have much choice.
If Apple is going to allow 3rd party payments... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that it was. my remark was not on what the judge ruled, but rather focused on things that this ruling did *NOT* prohibit. There is nothing that the judge ruled which would preclude any of what I have said, my remark is on what I expect Apple's future direction will be if the ruling is sustained.
If the ruling holds, Apple will obviously not be able to ban apps which open web page links with an option to pay, but they could still potentially ban apps
This reminds me of (Score:2)
George Carlin's "bigger dick foreign policy" bit, which can just as easily be adapted to plenty of other scenarios, like this one.
"What?! They have bigger dicks than us! BOMB THEM!"
Epic has a point in their initial complaint, but it's hard to feel sorry for them when they deliberately provoked Apple into booting Fortnite from the App Store. At the same time, Apple is acting like it's usual self, which is like someone with narcissistic personality disorder, taking the holding of grudges to unhealthy levels.
A
Re:This reminds me of (Score:4, Insightful)
At the end of the day, both companies are losing a metric shittonnes of money from people who buy all the stupid hats and other skinning objects in games like Fortnite.
Only if you mistakenly believe there's a lot of people clamoring to play Fortnite on the worst possible platform for playing Fortnite.
There's a reason Epic decided to throw away the Android and iOS clients with this stunt, but did not go after Sony and Microsoft even though their consoles have more-or-less the same contract terms.
Think of the children (Score:2)
Re:Think of the children (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple runs the risk of losing the demographic who wants to play Fortnite as future customers. Not being a gamer I have no idea if the Fortnite fanbase is still growing or is in decline.
The better question is are there people who want to play Fortnite on a phone. And the answer to that is almost none. It's an utterly terrible interface for trying to play the game.
There's a reason Epic decided to throw away the Android and iOS clients on this stunt, but did not go after Sony and Microsoft despite their consoles having more-or-less the same contract terms. Because almost nobody wants to use it on a phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple runs the risk of losing the demographic who wants to play Fortnite as future customers. Not being a gamer I have no idea if the Fortnite fanbase is still growing or is in decline. If it is still growing then this should be a valid concern. If usage has peaked or is now in decline, then Apple has successfully waited out the inevitable. Still, marketing droids believe in hooking consumers early for brand loyalty and I assume that is a consideration for both sides.
Most kids moved back to Minecraft almost two years ago . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Apple runs the risk of losing the demographic who wants to play Fortnite as future customers. Not being a gamer I have no idea if the Fortnite fanbase is still growing or is in decline.
Fortnite is in steep decline. It peaked in about 2018... as a game. What Epic is trying to do is pivot Fortnite to being a social platform - almost like Second Life done better.
And there lies the exploit Microsoft used (Score:2)
The software in 5 years time will differ enough that Apple will claim any ruling doesn't apply and will repeat their refusal. They can keep going like that for maybe another three or four years. By which time the game, and possibly the vendor, will no longer exist. Or Apple will spin off the store to a shell company they indirectly own, so any injunction on Apple still doesn't apply.
The laws and the courts need some serious upgrading.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know, times were a lot simpler when all you needed for justice was a gun and faster reflexes than the other guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Epic sued... (Score:2)
Epic sued Apple in August 2020 after Epic violated the terms of their contract.
There, fixed it for you.
Data Security (Score:1)