Judge Denies Apple's Request to Delay App Store Changes in Epic Games Case
upstart writes:
Judge denies Apple's request for a stay after Epic trial:
Judge Denies Apple's Request to Delay App Store Changes in Epic Games CaseJudge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has denied Apple's request for a stay of the injunction ordering it to let app developers link to non-Apple payment options. The company has 90 days from the verdict to comply.
As part of the Epic v Apple case that went to court this year, Apple was found to be in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. A permanent injunction declared that, "Apple Inc. [...] are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app."
"It's going to take months to figure out the engineering, economic, business, and other issues," said Apple's attorney Mark Perry when requesting a stay on the order. "It is exceedingly complicated. There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers, to protect Apple. And they have to be written into guidelines that can be explained and enforced and applied."
Epic's attorney Gary Bornstein suggested this was purely a delaying tactic. "Apple does nothing unless it is forced to do it," he said.
upstart writes:
Judge denies Apple's request to delay App Store changes in Epic games case:
Judge Rogers seems to side with Epic's interpretation of Apple's request, writing in the ruling today:
"In short, Apple's motion is based on a selective reading of this Court's findings and ignores all of the findings which supported the injunction, namely incipient antitrust conduct including supercompetitive commission rates resulting in extraordinarily high operating margins and which have not been correlated to the value of its intellectual property. This incipient antitrust conduct is the result, in part, of the antisteering policies which Apple has enforced to harm competition. As a consequence, the motion is fundamentally flawed. Further, even if additional time was warranted to comply with the limited injunction, Apple did not request additional time other than ten days to appeal this ruling. Thus, the Court does not consider the option of additional time, other than the requested ten days."
See also: Judge orders Apple to allow external payment options for App Store by December 9th, denying stay:
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.