Judge dismisses Apple's "theft" claims in Epic Games lawsuit:
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers this week threw out two Apple counterclaims stemming from the company's antitrust/breach-of-contract court battle with Epic Games over the fate of Fortnite on iOS.
[...] This week's ruling, however, deals with counterclaims filed by Apple in response to that lawsuit. In those counterclaims, Apple argued that the introduction of Epic Direct Payments (which are still available in the iOS version of the game, for people who downloaded it before the App Store removal) amounted to "intentional interference" with Apple's legitimate business. The company also sought extra punitive damages for what it considers "little more than theft" of the 30-percent commission that it is rightfully owed.
[...] "This is a high-stakes breach of contract case and an antitrust case and that's all in my view," Rogers said. And despite Apple's loss here, those two core elements of the case will continue to be argued as the case moves forward to a trial, with arguments scheduled for May.
"Epic enabled a feature in its app which was not reviewed or approved by Apple, and they did so with the express intent of violating the App Store guidelines that apply equally to every developer who sells digital goods and services," Apple said in a statement. "Their reckless behavior made pawns of customers, and we look forward to making it right for them in court next May."
previously:
Fortnite Maker Sues Apple after Removal of Game From App Store
Related Stories
Fortnite maker sues Apple after removal of game from App Store:
Apple Inc on Thursday removed popular video game "Fortnite" from its App Store for violating the company's in-app payment guidelines, prompting developer Epic Games to file a federal lawsuit challenging the iPhone maker's rules.
Apple cited a direct payment feature rolled out on the Fortnite app earlier on Thursday as the violation.
Epic sued in U.S. court seeking no money from Apple but rather an injunction that would end many of the company's practices related to the App Store, which is the only way to distribute native software onto most iPhones.
[...] Apple takes a cut of between 15% and 30% for most app subscriptions and payments made inside apps, though there are some exceptions for companies that already have a credit card on file for iPhone customers if they also offer an in-app payment that would benefit Apple. Analysts believe games are the biggest contributor to spending inside the App Store, which is in turn the largest component of Apple's $46.3 billion-per-year services segment.
In a statement, Apple said Fortnite had been removed because Epic had launched the payment feature with the "express intent of violating the App Store guidelines" after having had apps in the store for a decade.
"The fact that their (Epic) business interests now lead them to push for a special arrangement does not change the fact that these guidelines create a level playing field for all developers and make the store safe for all users," Apple said in a statement.
Apple turns post-lawsuit tables on Epic, will block Fortnite on iOS:
Weeks after Epic's apparent "win" against Apple in the Epic Games v. Apple case, Apple issued a letter denying Epic's request to have its developer license agreement reinstated until all legal options are exhausted. This effectively bans Fortnite and any other software from the game maker from returning to Apple's App Store for years.
Epic was handed an initial victory when the US District Court for Northern California issued an injunction on September 10 ordering Apple to open up in-game payment options for all developers. At the time, the injunction was something of a moral victory for Epic—allowing the developer to keep its in-game payment systems in its free-to-play Fortnite intact while avoiding paying Apple a 30 percent fee that had previously covered all in-app transactions.
But now Epic has faced a significant reversal of fortune.
The better thing would be to ban all micro-transactions. Instead this is more like a couple thieves divvying up the loot from the candy they stole from children. Sure, they didn't "steal anything", but kids aren't allowed to play the slot machines in Casinos, either.
Previously:
Apple Can No Longer Force Developers to Use In-App Purchasing, Judge Rules
Valve Gets Dragged into Apple and Epic’s Legal Fight Over Fortnite
Judge Dismisses Apple’s “Theft” Claims in Epic Games Lawsuit
Microsoft Thumbs its Nose at Apple With New “App Fairness” Policy
Your iPhone Copy of Fortnite is About to Become Out of Date [Updated]
Judge Issues Restraining Order Protecting Unreal Engine Development on iOS
Microsoft Issues Statement in Support of Epic Games to Remain on Apple Ecosystem
Epic-Apple Feud Could Also Affect Third-Party Unreal Engine Games
Fortnite Maker Sues Apple after Removal of Game From App Store
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @01:39PM (11 children)
so if you go to homedepo (apple) and build a mini store outlet inisde there (epic) and start selling lemonade this is not theft.
tho it feels nice if apple gets wacked on the fingers with a bamboo stick methinks in the long run, as i suppose more of this 'em "our hardware shows our (arbitrarly created) currence on our software" problems are to come, it is not good since the spotlight isn't shinning full glare on apple anymore, whilst in reality more bulbs should be added ...
?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @01:58PM
Why would that be theft? Calling that theft would be an incredibly radical redefinition of theft. It could be some other sort of violation, but calling it theft is not even remotely reasonable. That lemonade stand could potentially be a violation of the lease, but that's it. More likely, it would be a violation of the health code as in this scenario, it's unlikely that the lease included the necessary drains and sinks to operate without violating the health code.
This is a case of Apple massively overreaching and one of the reasons why they should be split up. I can't blame them though, they were allowed to illegally leverage their proprietary DRM to force people to buy iPods if they wanted to play their line up of ITMS exclusives on an MP3 player. Then strong arming the industry to allow DRM free tracks after they'd already wiped out all their competitors. So, why not try again? It's not like any of the regulatory agencies actually regulate large corporations any more.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 20 2020, @02:24PM (8 children)
Your question fails, hard. The digital world does NOT have equivalents in the physical world. A one isn't a 2x4, a zero isn't a box of nails.
Even if you could readily translate Apple sites into the physical world, there are things called "contracts". The biggest of the tech companies hold a virtual monopoly. They dictate terms in all contracts, terms of service, licenses, and whatever. "You can do business here, but I get 30% off the top, take it or leave it." Then, they turn around and forbid you doing business that doesn't go through their store? Monopoly abuse.
All of the tech companies need to be raked over the coals, and their power limited. Screw Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and all the rest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @03:25PM (6 children)
So why do they call them App Store guidelines instead of App Store Contracts?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 20 2020, @03:34PM (1 child)
Good question, that you should ask the App Stores. I suppose it's something of a weasel word that allows the App Store operator to redefine the contract whenever he wishes.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday November 20 2020, @05:03PM
You mean altering the deal?
At least Tim Cook is not saying "Luke, I am your father!"
Not yet anyway.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Friday November 20 2020, @04:49PM (3 children)
Saying Epic is treating customers like pawns ignores the fact that Apple already treats their customers like pawns. Bit hypocritical.
If an app provides for payments outside the App Store, that's not stealing from Apple. Apple doesn't have a "right " to revenue that's made outside the App Store. Same as credit card companies don't have a right to claim you're stealing from them if you pay cash or use a competing payment system.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday November 20 2020, @05:05PM (1 child)
Doesn't Apple [and Microsoft, and Google, and Oracle, and IBM, and . . .] treat its developers, developers, Developers, DEVELOPERS like pawns?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 21 2020, @03:51AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 21 2020, @01:34AM
Saying Epic is treating customers like pawns ignores the fact that Apple already treats their customers like pawns. Bit hypocritical.
There should be legal penalties for big corporations when they're hypocritical, and especially when their lawyers say hypocritical things in court.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 20 2020, @10:55PM
I don't get it. What are those "2x4" and "box of nails" that you are talking about? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday November 21 2020, @04:03AM
More like you have a chain of lemonade stands, some of them are inside Home Depot locations due to a contractual agreement with Home Depot which includes a share of your profits from those locations.
Your other locations are not in any way theft from Home Depot. Not even if your cups offer 10% off coupons for a future purchase or include a map showing your other locations.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Friday November 20 2020, @02:18PM
"Their reckless behavior made pawns of customers, and we look forward to making it right for them"
Oh fuck off. This is about Apple's profits and only Apple's profits. Stop making it sound like you're doing customers a favour. It's like the RIAA et al beating their chest about how they care about artists getting paid, when that payment is fractions of a penny on the dollar at best.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @03:22PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @03:26PM (15 children)
If the app requires an in-app purchase then Apple/Google can charge X percent
If the app is free with no in-app purchase then Apple/Google allows it to be on the play store for free
If the app is free to download but has an in-app purchase option then perhaps Apple/Google can charge a fee for every thousand or so downloads. The exact details have to be worked out more specifically between apple/Google and the vendor but you get the idea (ie: what if part of the app is free but there are in-app added paid features. What if there is in-app advertising. Some of this might need to be negotiated on a case by case basis perhaps since there might not be a one size fits all solution?).
For instance Netflix can be viewed on an Apple device, an Android device, or on a web browser. It's cross platform. So if I'm paying Netflix a monthly fee how should Apple and Google determine how much of my monthly fee belongs to them? Are they to monitor my traffic (spy on me) to determine how much of it was viewed via the app that went through their app store? Perhaps they should charge Netflix a fee for every 1000 or whatever downloads through their store.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @04:26PM (13 children)
Google would have a much better case than Apple. You can install other app stores.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday November 20 2020, @05:07PM (12 children)
Technically, yes you can.
Practically, no, most people never, ever will.
But that capability is a nice legal point for Google to be able to raise in court.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @06:00PM (7 children)
That's not just a nice point, it is a real difference. It's not just other app stores, you can outright install your own apps from the internet if you want to. It's not something that you're likely to do, but for smaller developers being able to have users install directly from your website solves a lot of logistical issues related to the terms of the store changing in ways that likely won't benefit you or the user.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday November 20 2020, @08:23PM (6 children)
For someone like you or I, it is a real difference. Most Android users will never install another app store. Or even just an app that isn't installed via an app store.
I had long used ES File Explorer. Now I hear bad things about it. Sad. I'm looking for a replacement. I am suspicious of the Play store.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 21 2020, @02:20AM (5 children)
Most Android users will never install another app store.
This is quite simply wrong, at least for Android users in the US. Almost *all* Android users have a second app store already installed on their phone, courtesy of their carrier. Verizon phones all have the Verizon store on them, for instance. Unfortunately, you usually can't remove these other app stores, or a bunch of the other crapware they pre-install.
Of course, I doubt these carrier app stores really get all that much business, but they must get some or else the carriers wouldn't continue to bother with them.
But yes, most users will not bother with other stores, or install an app outside the Play store. So what? That's their loss, if they can get a better deal that way. Suppose Epic offers their game both through the Google Play Store, and also as a direct install, and for users who opt for the latter route, they get a 40% discount on in-app purchases. I'm sure a decent number of users will figure out how to install it directly so they can reap that savings, even though they've never installed an app this way before. (Now if this were Apple users, *and* it was actually possible to directly install an app, I seriously doubt enough Apple users would bother doing it to make it worthwhile for Epic. Apple users just aren't like Android users.)
I had long used ES File Explorer. Now I hear bad things about it. Sad. I'm looking for a replacement.
This is a risk you take any time you use proprietary software, on any platform: it can be abandoned, or change ownership, or get modified in a way you find unusable, and there's nothing you can do about it other than keep trying to use the old version, and that will only work so long because backwards compatibility isn't perfect or guaranteed. I use an RPN calculator app on my phone called RealCalc, and it seems to have become abandoned, but I haven't seen anything that comes close to matching it yet, so I'll keep using it as long as I can.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Sunday November 22 2020, @06:27PM (1 child)
Well, that doesn't make the person you replied to wrong, it actually backs up what they said and what Epic is suing Google over (interfering with getting their store installed by default from a couple of device managers). Those app store are not installed by the user, they are pre-installed. Big difference.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 23 2020, @03:58AM
Ok, you have a point there, if you look at it literally. However, I think it is important to note that most people's (Android) phones *do* have the carrier app stores pre-installed, so the idea of different app stores should not be a foreign concept to most Android users.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday November 23 2020, @02:15AM (2 children)
I was not aware of carrier app stores. I haven't bought a carrier phone for several generations now. I have come to like Google phones that come with just a very few of the most basic apps and nothing else preinstalled.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 23 2020, @03:43AM (1 child)
Most phones are carrier phones, so it's easy to buy them lightly used at a huge discount after a year or so. Personally, I haven't been very impressed with Google's own phones spec-wise.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday November 23 2020, @03:25PM
Interesting.
I got a Nexus 6P years ago, and it's still going, my wife uses it now as an extra camera. (Although with a sim card, it could still be a phone.) I think that one is the longest lasting phone I've ever owned.
Then I got a Pixel 3 XL which I'm still using. Both were about top of the line. (eg, expensive)
I have never had any complaint about the specs or performance.
I like the fact that, unlike a carrier phone, I actually "own" the phone. No bloatware. First in line for all upgrades. Generously long update period before updates stop. Even then, security updates continue for some much longer time.
What's not to like?
After a few months with my first Google phone (Nexus 6P) I was pretty much sold for life. Until google destroys that trust. I had become totally disgusted with carrier phones. With my two Google phones, I was introduced to a world where my only relation with the carrier is that I buy a SIM card from them and have service on a month-to-month basis with no lock in. A huge freedom from the bad ol' days.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EvilSS on Friday November 20 2020, @06:17PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday November 23 2020, @04:01AM (1 child)
That does sound like a pretty strong anti-trust case against Google, since the carriers (Verizon, AT&T, etc.) *do* have their own app stores pre-loaded on their phones. If the carriers can load their own app stores, why aren't they allowed to pre-load Epic's store?
However, I do have to ask why Epic didn't just put their games in the carriers' app stores, since those are already there? And if it's because the fees at the carrier stores are too high, then why would the carriers pre-load Epic's store if this is going to result in them not getting those fees?
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday November 23 2020, @04:21AM
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 20 2020, @11:01PM
Practically, it happens [engadget.com] quite frequently [androidrank.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20 2020, @05:54PM
One of the issues here is that Apple makes it incredibly difficult to install anything to those devices that doesn't go through their App store. I'd be surprised if Epic didn't prefer to just provide the downloads themselves as it gives them complete control over the timing and the speed with which their games can get to the customers. On top of which, it would allow them to provide the user with whatever experience they wanted to.
Apple puts themselves in the middle of these transactions and demands to be paid for it. If they weren't engaged in antitrust violations, they would be a much, much, probably bankrupt, smaller company.