Apple Won't Have To Make the App Store Changes Ordered in Epic Ruling While Case is Appealed (techcrunch.com) 9
Apple will not have to implement changes to its in-app purchase system and App Store guidelines as ordered by the judge's ruling in its court battle with Epic Games. From a report: While Apple largely won that case, as the court ruled Apple was not acting as a monopolist, the company had been ordered to stop preventing app developers from adding links that pointed users to other means of paying for their in-app purchases outside the App Store. Both Apple and Epic appealed the original ruling -- Epic because it was not successful with its larger claims, and Apple because it disagreed with this aspect of the ruling over in-app purchases. Apple originally had until Dec. 9 to update its App Store policies, but had asked the court for a stay on the injunction regarding the changes to its in-app purchasing guidelines until the appeal was decided.
The appeals court has now granted Apple more time before the injunction goes into effect. That means developers will have to continue to use the existing in-app purchase system Apple provides. They won't be allowed to link to or steer users to their own websites for payments from inside their apps. In a document filed today in the U.S Court of Appels for the Ninth Circuit, the court decided Apple had demonstrated "at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court's determination that Epic Games failed to show Apple's conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct violated California's Unfair Competition Law."
The appeals court has now granted Apple more time before the injunction goes into effect. That means developers will have to continue to use the existing in-app purchase system Apple provides. They won't be allowed to link to or steer users to their own websites for payments from inside their apps. In a document filed today in the U.S Court of Appels for the Ninth Circuit, the court decided Apple had demonstrated "at minimum, that its appeal raises serious questions on the merits of the district court's determination that Epic Games failed to show Apple's conduct violated any antitrust laws but did show that the same conduct violated California's Unfair Competition Law."
What about South Korea where apple is forced to? (Score:3)
What about South Korea where apple is forced to?
Re: (Score:2)
They will be forced to there.
The US has the best justice system (Score:5, Insightful)
The /. summary is NOT ACCURATE (Score:2, Interesting)
The Appeals Court granted a temporary stay on the trial court's order, until the Appeals Court can rule on the appeal. That's all. This is not a final decision on the appeal by either Epic or Apple (both have appealed the trial court ruling.)
Granting a stay says "the Appeals Court thinks there is both a reasonable argument made in opposition to the order, and a reasonable argument of 'irreparable harm' if the lower court ruling goes into effect -immediately-." This basically preserves the status quo, an
Re: (Score:1)
The article is not misleading. Before today, Apple was going to have to make the change while the appeal was heard, now it has a stay.
Re: (Score:3)
Comprehension skills lacking a bit today?
Both the summary and linked article are titled "Apple Won't Have To Make the App Store Changes Ordered in Epic Ruling While Case is Appealed". Anyone remotely familiar with the law would realize that this isn't a final decision but is only valid "while [the] case is appealed". Sure the first line of the summary states it as sounding more final but the part of the article quoted right below that line shows that this is only a temporary reprieve for Apple (at least unt
You can't steer them to outside payment in the app (Score:2)
But can you email them a link to outside payment, which they open outside of the app entirely? The user would then enter codes in the app which they receive via email to enable whatever in-app purchase they wanted to buy.
It's nominally less convenient, and perhaps sufficiently so that some people might not want to bother, but I suspect that this would not actually break apple's policies (although probably still violates their intent).
Re: (Score:1)
The solution would be to allow the (Score:1)