Epic Denied Preliminary Injunction for Fortnite, but Apple Can't Block Unreal
macrumors.com
macrumors.com
The 30% escrow offer I think misses the point for both Epic and Apple. Because while both want the money, Apple's entire argument is predicated on the "privacy and safety" of only going through their payment processing, whilst Epic's entire argument is predicated on that requirement being monopolistic and unfair and that third party processors must be allowed.
Neither wants the other's system to hold, even if the money is being held somewhere until the end of the case.
Is your point that Epic could/did argue that they need relief because escrow via Apple's payment systems provides no benefit to customers who want to use an alternative payment system?
I'm no expert but it would seem odd to grant "relief" that alters the status quo. That's granting automatic improvement over the original terms Epic signed up to.
No, it doesn't. The public interest factor in injunctions is unrelated to defenses (and defenses aren't really something the plaintiff needs to have, generally.)
> and a public interest defense is listed as a requirement for preliminary injunctive relief.
No, the public interest must favor the injunction; this is aside from considering any defenses applicable to the causes of action in the case.
But if you remove the word "defense" from my post, I don't understand what it is you are disputing, or if there is any remaining dispute. So for example, imagine I had said the following:
Epic doesn't seem to be able to establish an injunction is in the "public interest" in the sense of getting their game back in consumers' hands.
Seems like a very sensible approach that they refused.
Getting back in doesn't advance their position in any meaningful way.
Most people with an iOS device probably have access to another device they can use to play Fortnite, and the only way the iOS 30% cut works out in their favor is if:
a. there exist some customers that will only license Fortnite on iOS and/or will buy an additional license for iOS.
b. at least 70% of these customers won't instead seek out another platform; e.g. buy a second tablet because Fortnite won't work on iPad, or use a device they already own which they may not like as much as the iPad but will work.
Just a heads up, Fortnite is free to play and makes its money through microtransactions, selling things like characters to play as, dances to show off during the game, things like that.
They knew what they were getting into here and thought it was worth the cost.
Epic may well have expected to lose, but they may well have thought that (1) they were big enough - search suggests Fortnite iOS revenue was slightly bigger than Netflix — and, (2) Apple was vulnerable enough after Basecamp and with antitrust, that they could force them to the table with the threat of another, much larger PR shitstorm hanging over their fall launches.