Read the juiciest bits from the Apple-Epic court ruling

Judge Yovon Gonzalez Rogers disappointed Apple. In fact, Truly Disappointed

He worked to deny the court order of Apple and its authorities in the newly released Rogers’ decision on Rogers. Fortnite Maker is the original case with Epic GamesThe Although Apple originally won this round, because it was determined that the technology giant was not exclusive, the court decided that Apple was behaving in an antimomtim fashion in a certain region: App developers did not supply other ways to pay their customers out of their own payment platform.

The judge ruled that developers should be able to link to other ways to shop from inside their applications, so that they can process their own website and payment system through the payment system. By doing this, the developers should have been able to quit providing 30% of Apple’s commission to purchase in-app.

Apple, however, has made it even more rigorous for any developers that choose this option. It has just dropped its commission to 22% for the outdoor purchase and added the “horrible screen”: alert to displeasure customers who could be tempted to go out of purchase. This method can end more expensive developers when Apple’s main commission is only with 3% discount, when the processing fee of their own payment is taken into consideration.

As a result, Apple secured its profitable App Store business model by spending its reputation, its relationship with the iOS developed community and its good position in the law.

In the decision of Rogers, it is clear that Apple’s strategies to him were enough and the verdict was full of juicy tides where he clearly revealed it.

Apple responded to the court verdict in the following statement: “We do not strongly agree with the decision. We will accept the court order and we will apply.”

If you do not have time to read all 80 pages itself, we have scored a few of the best bits below.

Judge Apple called for trying to turn his original order

“Apple’s response to the prohibition of order stem credibility It will not be seen through its obvious cover-up (2024 clear hearing). “

The judge complained to Apple more anticipative and lied under oath

“In contrast to Apple’s primary court’s testimony, contemporary business documents publish that Apple knew exactly what he was doing and chose the most anti-alternative at each time. To hide the truth, the vice-president of money lied under the direct oath.”

“Cook chosen badly”: CEO COM CEO CEO of Judge Slam to listen to CFO’s advice

“Internally, Philip Shila advised that Apple obeyed the order with the ban, but instead ignored the Cooking Shiller, Luca Mythry and his finance team had otherwise allowed him to persuade him otherwise. Cook chose the California Northern district to prove the matter to the California northern district.”

…

“Since Mr. Shola was not in favor of the Commission, and Mr. Mythry was fully suggesting for the profitable method, Mr. Cook was a tie-breaker.”

(Notice that anyone is no longer in Apple, anyway?)

“This is an order is forbidden, not the discussion”: the judge says Apple has to obey Now

“This is an order forbidden, not the discussion. Once a party deliberately ignores the order of the court. The time is the main issue. The court will not tolerate further delay. The previous order has not been given, they will not be subjected to apple they will not apply effectively to off-applications.”

The judge says that Apple has delayed the activities to protect its profits

“Apple is involved in executive delay strategies. The court later reached the conclusion that the delay was equal to the profit.”

“In the end, Epic and Apple appointed three special master to review Apple’s privilege claims after re -reviewing it. (See, for example, Dr.

…

“The court further has discovered that Apple’s Attorney-Cleant’s privileges have to delay the abuse of the privilege and its decision-making process to obscure the approval of the future misconduct. The true date is similar to the date.

Apple has hidden his decision -making from the court

“In its most common configuration, the ‘Linked-out purchase’ after the ban ‘Apple platform is closed, from there you can leave the platform using a link to the app. Now, under the revised guidelines, Apple does not accept a 27% of the Commission for the Commission for the Commission for the Commission for the Commission. It also enhances the commission ‘Digital products and services that are tapped on an external website within seven days.’ … Apple hides his decision to open a second clear hearing in 2021. “

…

Code related activities related to the consent of the ban as “Apple ‘Project Michigan’ … when the ninth circuit is December 7, 2021 (Dr.

Apple knew that it was not agreed with the order ban

“The court has now proved that Apple Landscape has investigated, knowing how it would harm the developers, and to understand that it would not be followed by the goal, Apple, on June 28, 2021, it was determined that it would not charge a commission on the purchase of the link-out, though it was not yet decided that it would not be published by the Quality. And what will not happen… Apple’s knowledge and consideration was not considered … Apple’s knowledge and consideration was not considered … Apple’s knowledge and consideration was not considered … “

Judge says Finance VP Alex lied under the Roman oath

“The testimony of Finance Vice President Mr. Roman was full of misinterpretation and direct lies. He even went on to testify that Apple did not keep an eye on the expenses of alternative payment, which would be collected for the benefit of the developers to be attached to the purchase.”

…

“Mr. Roman did not stop there, but he testified that Apple had no idea until January 1, 2021, the key fees on the link-out purchase:

Q. And I accept it that Apple decided to impose 27 percent fee on a link to links before 2024, didn’t it?

A. The decision was made that day.

Q. It is your testimony that on January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fees it would impose on the linked purchase?

A. It’s right. “

“Lie down to the bottom of another oath: Conversely business documents reveal that the main components of Apple’s plan, including 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.

Apple, or its advice, has not clearly corrected now. They did not try to withdraw the testimony or hurt it (though the Apple court had requested to hurt another testimony). Thus, Apple will be held in this court that false and wrong presentation will be held. “

Apple has made her awesome screens even dreadful

“Apple has deployed a warning message referred to as a ‘horrible screen’ to prevent users from using third party payment options.”

…

“The screen is called a ‘sheet’ on the right, which the user has a complete screen -tackover after clicking an external
Link. From left to right, the alert level to the user increases. Again, Apple has chosen the most anticipative option, namely the entire screen takover “”

…

“Once again Apple has decided on the most anticipative option, that is, the ‘worse’ option to include developers than the name of the app. All of this was hidden from the court and was not published in the clear hearing of May 2024.”

“Very low developer has signed up for link entitlement programs (outward purchase links).”

“As a hearing in May 2024, only 136,000 total developers were applied for the 34 developers, and in these developers did not offer seventeen applications to the first place. In May 2024, Apple argued that it would not take more time to take advantage of link entitlement and not. Apple tried to confuse here. “

The court thinks that Apple has violated the letter and consciousness of the order of the order

“There are several issues with Apple’s argument. First, it is ridiculous to expect that the contents of the 180 -page order issued with a one -way order issued simultaneously will be ridiculous. For the first time, the second one, even in the four corners of the injury, will be restricted to the four corners of the injury. By applying literal explanation, especially where this explanation is designed to avoid the goals of the order. “

…

“In short, Apple’s behavior lacks justice: It does not compare with the ban on the ban, a strained and questionable explanation of that language is to ban the 5 -page order and the ninth circuit fully ignored the opinion of the ninth circuit and falsely requested the Witness Stand. Apple should be in the notice for this opportunity.

The court has said that the requirements of link-out transactions were not equitable

“This requirement (set above) of Apple (set above) strain credibility. Most significantly and to underscore Apple’s qualified justice, Apple does not require developers to sell physical products for an application for any link-out transaction before deploying link-out transactions. Apple imposes this for IAP cable.”

The court keeps the apple in disobedience

“Apple’s behavior violates the prohibition. Non-compliance was far from ‘technical or de minimis’. Apple’s lack of adequate justification, knowledge of its consent program, the purpose of securing its illegal revenue flow, and then the court could not agree to the court and the court to the court.

…

“Apple deliberately chose to comply with the order of this court. It did with the intention of manifesting the new anti -anticipative barriers that maintained a valuable revenue stream; earlier a revenue flow was thought to be anticipative.