^How about putting some full quotes.
In regards to Fortnite.
Your client created the situation. Your client doesn't come to this court with clean hands. Epic made a strategically and calculated move to breach, and decided to breach right before a new season. So in my view, you cannot have irreparable harm when you create a harm yourself.
All Epic has to do is take it back to the status quo and no one suffers any harm. And you can have a trial date in the spring. Flip the switch to the way it was August 3rd and return everybody back to where they were.
In regards to the Unreal engine.
The contract with Epic International has not been breached. Apple reached beyond its one contract with Epic Games and is using its hard leverage. It's slammed Epic Games with this additional penalty. It does to me look retaliatory. I don't see any harm to Apple to restrain you from not impacting the Unreal Engine on that platform or the developer's engine. It looks like overreach to me.
Comment towards the end.
There's some measure of a lack of competition and high barriers to market entry. That said, there appears to be evidence that everyone that uses these kind of platforms to sell games is charging 30%. Whether Epic likes it, the industry and not just Apple seem to be charging that. Right now, Epic is paying Apple nothing. Epic itself charges third parties. This battle won't be won or lost on a TRO, and Apple has a reputation of going the distance so it's not surprising they acted the way they did here, but like I said, they overreached.
So in regards to the TRO the judge is inclined to side with Apple on Fortnite, but with Epic on the Unreal Engine. I would like to point out that Apple could still have the option of deciding they no longer want to deal with Epic and give them a 30 day notice as per their agreement.
Here are a few more snippets.
Here is Order on Motion for TRO, denied on Fortnite, granted on Unreal Engine.Last edited by Rhonin the wizard - on 25 August 2020