Not particularly impressed by this judge. Her biggest arguments boil down to every 6 year olds favorite "Well other people do it too!". That doesn't justify the practice so much as illustrate how pervasive the practice has been allowed to become.
> She also reiterated that Epic Games made a "calculated decision" to defy Apple's App Store rules, and the court doesn't provide injunctions for contractual disputes. Epic was "not forthright," she said. "There are people in the public who consider you guys heroes for what you did, but it's not honest.
I also fail to see how that is relevant. She comes off as overly interested in Apple succeeding here.
AFAIK, this is a hearing for a preliminary injunction, not the actual trial itself.
That means that saying, "Well, other people do it too" is exactly what a judge should be examining at this point. There was a T&C contract, the form of which is standard across the industry, and Epic broke the T&C on purpose. Which likely means no injuctive relief at this point.
You could argue that the T&C are onerous and/or that there are anti-competitive behaviors, but neither of those can be addressed in this preliminary phase.
I don't see any basis for claiming that the judge has an "over interest" in Apple succeeding. That claim implies impropriety, and such a claim should carry a high bar for evidence.
It’s very relevant. If other people do it, and it’s a problem, then this isn’t about Apple. It’s about the practice, and the scope of the case should be much larger and apply to everyone.
I support that outcome. I don’t think Apple should be targeted. If walled gardens are bad, they should be banned everywhere, not just the one Epic happens to want to profit from.
> She also reiterated that Epic Games made a "calculated decision" to defy Apple's App Store rules, and the court doesn't provide injunctions for contractual disputes. Epic was "not forthright," she said. "There are people in the public who consider you guys heroes for what you did, but it's not honest.
I also fail to see how that is relevant. She comes off as overly interested in Apple succeeding here.