As the litigation between Epic Games and Apple moves towards a September 28 hearing, the iPhone maker does not use words to argue against Epic’s motion for an injunction Fourteen days back to the iOS App Store. In a 37-page motion filed late Tuesday, Apple says it must retain the ability to “punish one of the most egregious acts of sabotage Apple has seen with a developer.”
“Epic started a fire and poured gasoline on it and is now asking this court for immediate help in extinguishing it, although Epic can do it itself immediately by simply complying with the terms of the contract that have governed its relationship with Apple for years,” the motion reads partially. “Epic is a saboteur, not a martyr.”
Apple’s argument for keeping it Fourteen days Leaving the App Store unchanged depends heavily on arguments for protecting iPhone security. When Apple first created the iOS App Store, it said, “Instead of recreating the Internet, Apple instead created a safe and trusted place for its iPhone customers to discover and download apps, knowing that they are work seamlessly and safely with the tap. ” of a finger. “
Epic undermined this secure approach by violating the terms of its developer agreement and adding its own direct payments option to the iOS version of Fourteen days about a “hotfix” that Apple couldn’t verify before going live. As a result, Apple could not ensure that Epic “had not made any changes to the payment system or bypassed iPhone security features or privacy protection,” as it normally does.
The way it is, for example Fourteen daysDirect payment option (which will still be available and used by players who previously downloaded it Fourteen days for iOS) isn’t blocked by iPhone’s built-in parental controls restrictions for in-app purchases. “Apple promises its customers that the App Store will be a safe and trustworthy place for customers to discover and download apps,” the company writes. “By adding secret and unverified features to an app, Epic is putting the relationship between Apple and iPhone customers at risk.”
If Epic argues successfully here, Apple warns, nothing will stop other developers from undermining Apple’s 30 percent cut in in-app purchases as well. “Epic insists that other developers do not follow suit because they fear” retaliation “,” writes Apple. “But no one will fear Apple’s response when that court grants the injunction requested by Epic, stating that any developer can inconsistently break Apple’s rules as long as they claim Apple’s rules are anti-competitive.”
Still looking for Unreal Engine
Fourteen days Aside from that, Apple also argues that it must retain the right to close all of Epic’s iOS developer accounts. This includes the accounts behind the development of Unreal Engine on iOS, which are currently protected by an injunction.
Apple wants to partially close all Epic accounts to prevent a so-called “shell game” of apps from being transferred from one developer account to another. However, Apple says this is also because the company is now viewing Epic’s Unreal Engine as a “potential threat,” which is posing as the second potential “Trojan horse” that would allow Epic to continue its threats to the app Undermine the store and introduce other unauthorized functions. “”
According to Apple, via Unreal Engine, Epic could “insert malware or other unauthorized features like alternative direct payment mechanisms into the non-Epic apps” available on the App Store and relying on Unreal Engine … it’s easy to see a fraudulent one Application that interferes with the operation of a significant proportion of the world’s iPhones, could significantly disrupt local or even global telephony systems, as well as large parts of the Internet itself. “
As far-fetched as these claims of global internet sabotage of the game engine are, Apple’s main point is that it can no longer give Epic the benefit of the doubt about its iPhone security and its iOS development contract obligations. “Apple does not wait to be deceived a second time before a partner is terminated because of the bad deeds of its clients,” writes the company.
The rest of Apple’s motion largely echoes earlier arguments that Epic is unlikely to prove its claims that Apple is a monopoly with improper control of the market. The fact that Epic “enjoys alternative means of distribution Fourteen days“From consoles and PCs to Android phones” available[s] A textbook example of services that are “reasonably interchangeable” when used “for the same purposes,” writes Apple.
More so, Apple says Epic has other monetization options on iOS too Fourteen days without paying Apple’s 30 percent fee for in-app purchases. “A developer can generate income through advertising, through the sale of physical goods and services, and through a number of other ways that do not result in any commission for Apple,” the company writes, adding that over 80 percent of the apps are contained in the app Save such business models.
Apple also reiterates its position, previously endorsed by the court, that Epic’s damage in this matter is self-inflicted and therefore no injunction is required for rectification. Regarding Epic’s alleged “reputational damage” when it was evicted from the App Store, Apple notes that “Epic undertook a major, pre-planned media flash of its decision to violate its agreement with Apple to create advertising campaigns when Epic would be genuinely concerned that this dispute would damage its reputation if it did not go into these elaborate efforts to promote it. “