Board 8 > There was a temporary verdict on the whole Apple/Epic thing

(+) Yeah! (+)

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has issued a temporary verdict on two of the cases most pending issues. She denied Epics request to have Fortnite reinstated but, as Bloomberg report, granted the companys request for a temporary order blocking Apple from limiting the game developers ability to provide Unreal Engine, key graphics technology, for other apps.

In her decision, Judge Gonzalez Rogers noted that there is potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine platform itself, and to the gaming industry generally, including on both third-party developers and gamers faced by Apples actions against Unreal, a point that was debated in yesterdays hearing. Elsewhere in the decision, she wrote, Apple is hard-pressed to dispute that even if Epic Games succeeded on the merits, it could be too late to save all the projects by third-party developers relying on the engine that were shelved while support was unavailable....Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem.

In regards to Fortnite and other games, however, similar harm could not be clearly demonstrated. The decision reads:

Fortnite players are passionate supporters of the game, and eagerly anticipate its return to the iOS platform. The Court further recognizes that during these coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) times, virtual escapes may assist in connecting people and providing a space that is otherwise unavailable. However, the showing is not sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited, proceedings.

The judge also wrote, While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apples 30 percent take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a zero percent alternative. The likelihood of Epic ultimately prevailing was one of the factors in determining whether or not to grant the temporary restraining order. The temporary restraining order is effective immediately and will remain in force until the Court issues an order on the motion for preliminary injunction, the hearing for which is set for September 28.

Personally I find all this fascinating and will continue to follow how this develops

---

that is interesting- i don't fully understand the significance of the unreal engine part

was apple threatening to block all games that used unreal engine? that can't be right. but who develops on their phone?

---

Basically, you wouldn't be able to do development with Unreal Engine on iOS if Apple's thing had stayed, I believe. Existing games would stay up, though it might not have been possible to update them?
---

Mac Arrowny posted...

Basically, you wouldn't be able to do development with Unreal Engine on iOS if Apple's thing had stayed, I believe. Existing games would stay up, though it might not have been possible to update them?

Yea essentially. iOS apps require you to build through Xcode, which only runs on Macs, meaning that you need to have Unreal on a Mac in order to make any iOS apps. So, if you block Unreal on Macs, no more iOS development.

---

Blocking Unreal was an overreaction by Apple for sure, so it makes sense that got shut down.

Though I also agree with the other decision. Epic created this current problem themselves, and could easily get Fortnite back on the store by just putting up with the current terms until the legal matters are resolved. There's no reason to force Apple to put it back, here, since Epic did indeed break contract.

---

Not a lawyer but I'm guessing Epic asked to put the game back up knowing Apple would say no so that if they win the case they could sue for damages while the game was offline?

---

skullbone posted...

Not a lawyer but I'm guessing Epic asked to put the game back up knowing Apple would say no so that if they win the case they could sue for damages while the game was offline?

even if Epic wins they are not automatically going to be awarded damages for that

---

skullbone posted...

Not a lawyer but I'm guessing Epic asked to put the game back up knowing Apple would say no so that if they win the case they could sue for damages while the game was offline?

Not quite.

They wanted the court to order Apple to put Fortnite back up on the store in its current (contract-breaking) state, which would basically give them the power to drag this out for years and Apple wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Basically, their argument was "While we're suing, we want special treatment. Tell them the rules don't apply to us."

Apple's argument was "We'll put the game back up just follow the rules in the meantime" since the lawsuit is over the rules to begin with.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Not quite.

They wanted the court to order Apple to put Fortnite back up on the store in its current (contract-breaking) state, which would basically give them the power to drag this out for years and Apple wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Basically, their argument was "While we're suing, we want special treatment. Tell them the rules don't apply to us."

Apple's argument was "We'll put the game back up just follow the rules in the meantime" since the lawsuit is over the rules to begin with.

This is all accurate.

Ballsy play by Epic. I didn't follow this because I didn't realize it was expedited, but man. lol I don't know how they thought this might work. But I think it was more for the Unreal thing and they figured "We may as well just fire our shot anyway."

The court seems like they've made the reasonable call here though. Apple is likely just going to stretch this out as long as they can, or at least until the contract is over with Epic. No reason why they shouldn't just make loads of money off of Fortnite now until they can't anymore.

---