Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Argues to Get App Store Injunction Thrown Out in Epic v. Apple Appeal

jonblatho said:
“Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this alleged murder has no victim because the purported ‘victim’ is no longer alive and therefore cannot be murdered.”
Click to expand...
Hmmm, no, I think the sate of the victim “still being dead” would be the point of “illegalitic happenstances”. Now, if the victim, after having been made dead (which is a problem) were to “no longer be dead”, it WOULD be a curious thing to state that, since the victim is no longer dead, there’s no legal standing over “what happens next”. Plus, are they alive again due to an action the murderer took? Are they alive again due to them somehow just being able to “walk off” any injury including death? Are they alive due to the machinations of some unknown third party which may or may not provide some 11th hour courtroom drama? Is current jurisprudence even able to handle a situation where a murder victim is effectively not murdered anymore? Perhaps any charges are levied based on how much life they missed? Dead for 12 minutes, misdemeanor… dead for 5 days could be much steeper (especially if any bill came due during that time OR, it can be shown that the un-killed has intended to attend a personally significant event… like a wedding or Apple Store opening).

I have entertained myself greatly with your post. Thank you!
 
TVreporter said:
The only winners in this... the lawyers.
Click to expand...
If Apple wins, honestly the real winners would be the consumers. People like iOS devices because there is a single App Store and payment system that they can use for all of their purchases. If Epic got their way, it would require Apple to allow third party Application Stores on your devices. It wouldn't just be the Epic Game Store, it would also eventually end up with Blizzard, EA, Steam, maybe Nintendo, maybe Sony, and any other company who decides they want to skip paying Apple commissions to utilize the Apple developer tools on an Apple platform. What makes Apple more secure is their strict requirements on Apps. Whether you agree with their strictness or not, the fact of the matter is that it does help prevent fraud on Apple devices.

Not sure how many people jailbroke their iOS devices, but companies do prevent people from using third party stores likes Cydia on your iOS device. There are many games and applications which do not work on a Jailbroken device. AT&T has done this, games have done this, security software (if you use your phone for work), and more look for non-standard software on your device and disable their app. You may not be able to use your Secure Tokens or any work related stuff on your phone because you have a non-standard store on your phone. I can see this as being a mess and you know companies like Epic are going to require their store to be installed to play their games. Multiple payment systems would also be a big issue as well.

This would be a giant mess and make gaming on iOS like gaming on a Windows PC. This would be a huge loss for the consumer. And this wouldn't just be Apple, you'd see the same thing on the Playstation, Nintendo, Xbox, Android, Atari, and any other gaming system.

o
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: Victor Mortimer, JKAussieSkater, strongy and 4 others
a.phoenicis said:
Wait… isn’t anyone going to point out how Epic has rolled out its own in-game store where “creators” can sell their own digital creations to fortnight gamers? And how Epic, ever fair-minded and reasonable, and taking great pains to show Apple and the world how to fairly compensate creators is taking 95% of the revenue from creators??

😂😂 What hypocritical a**hats. 🙄
Click to expand...
Please don’t make shut up that aren’t related. The epic store allows:
1: other stores (0% cut)
2: takes a 12%cut
3: custom payment system( 0%cut)

Apple takes 15% from the first dollar.
Epic takes 12% on the first earned million when using their UE5 engine.

Epic taking 95% of in game assets created for their game isn’t relevant to the store with other developers games.
 
  • Haha
  • Disagree
Reactions: Victor Mortimer, techfreak23 and strongy
gaximus said:
More like Employee steel money out of register, gets fired, then tries to sue the company for not paying them enough to begin with.
Click to expand...
great Analogy. It’s more that the employees takes a cut of their tipping and later fires the person for taking back their tip.

And later sue the company for stealing their rightfully owed tip and the company argues it’s their right to take any tip they make. And the employee being fires for failing to disclose their tips the consumers have directly to them and keep it for themselves.
 
Unregistered 4U said:
I find it quite amazing that folks still don’t recognize this, but, then again, it doesn’t come up often as a discussion point, so many never learn (and don’t read EULA’s).
Click to expand...
I find it amazing people honestly believe EULA are legal just because it say so. EULA as Americans understand them have zero legal protection in EU and guarantees ownership after purchase. Otherwise it’s called rent.
 
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Victor Mortimer, strongy and Shirasaki
Appleman3546 said:
This reply brief was hilarious, I cannot believe Apple’s lawyers got paid to write this without proof reading it for contradictions
Click to expand...
I read several pages of the reply brief. The language seemed typical of these type of documents and I did not see significant contradictions.
 
Sophisticatednut said:
Epic taking 95% of in game assets created for their game isn’t relevant to the store with other developers games.
Click to expand...
It’s relevant in that Epic has entered into an agreement with game asset creators to take 95% and leave the creator with 5%. If one is saying that it’s right and proper for an entity to enter into an agreement with another entity such that one entity takes 95 and the other takes 5, then it’s right and proper for any other allocation of percentage as well, including 70/30. It doesn’t matter what the agreement entails, just that it exists and the interested parties abide by it. I mean, I could create some arbitrary new rules for doing business where I make up a term called “gatekeeper” define it such that it effectively means ‘any company named Apple’ and then say that gatekeepers are NOT allowed to enter into agreements with other entities in a way that I don’t like… but then I’d be the EU. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy, Timpetus and a.phoenicis
Sophisticatednut said:
I find it amazing people honestly believe EULA are legal just because it say so. EULA as Americans understand them have zero legal protection in EU and guarantees ownership after purchase. Otherwise it’s called rent.
Click to expand...
Well, I mean the EU is hardly the whole world. :) Just another reason why another large section of the economy is wholly controlled by non-European companies! Like, why spend the effort on innovating in software and services delivery when a company can’t license what they produce as they see fit? Let some non-EU company do it then ignore their license!
 
  • Like
Reactions: techfreak23 and Timpetus
I see final ruling. Does that mean this legal battle finally will come to an end? Though I seriously doubt neither party will satisfy with anything court provided during the appeal.

However, one thing I love is Epic trying to challenge Apple to prove the world Apple is NOT untouchable. Whether Epic win or not, this marathon has already sparked some meaningful disruption attempts to this too big to fail megacorp.

I don’t know how long the appeal process will take. But I’m eager to see the final result.
 
Shirasaki said:
Though I seriously doubt neither party will satisfy with anything court provided during the appeal.
Click to expand...
Apple’s already happy with part of it. In some ways it was the bigger and, for them, the more contentious part. While they might not 100% agree with whatever the ruling is, if, in large part, it’s “Apple can continue to do business in the legal way that they have been doing business since the App Store opened”, then it’s a good and likely precedent setting outcome for Apple and every company that has a digital online store presence, which would include Epic, actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Timpetus
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back