• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Apple mostly wins in Epic Games Fortnite trial, but must ease payment rules.

Tks

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Messages
3,221
Likes
5,494
https://www.sfgate.com/cnet/article/Apple-mostly-wins-in-Epic-Games-Fortnite-trial-16449054.php

Most of the case is clear, except one portion.

Any lawyers in the house willing to clear up one legal thing I can't wrap my mind around. It seems Epic has been found in violation of an (illegal) contract with Apple. How does this work exactly with respect of having to pay for damages on a contract that can't be legally upheld?

Having a contract that forbids developers from circumventing the forced payment method through Apple was found to be illegal as now developers will be allowed to redirect to whatever payment type they want to offer their customers. So how can be Epic be penalized for such a violation?

In her decision, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said she agreed with Apple's claim that Epic had violated its developer agreements, and awarded damages equal to 30% of the $12 million Epic collected from iOS users between August and October 2020, plus 30% of any such revenue Epic's collected since then. Rogers also said Apple's rules against allowing developers to direct users to other payment systems was anti-competitive, and issued an injunction to allow developers to do so in their apps.

So pay for "damages" incurred to a contract I -as a judge- now see was not a legal contract?

What kind of person makes it to this position of a judge while seemingly holding to hypocritical viewpoints? And makes rulings based on them nonetheless? And a one as big as this? Honestly hope I'm missing the forest for the trees here, otherwise this seems like a disgusting mark on the history of what seems to be a pending landmark case.

Also there isn't even any details provided on what developers can do specifically? How did this judge not make comment on whether developers themselves are allowed to inform users through the app about various payment methods? It's still one big fat question mark.

Overall, a pretty disappointing ruling. Pretty shocking to see this precedent being set. We are so fucked for future device software integration it's not even funny.
 
Top Bottom