Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is crazy in Apple. Really, really tatty.
Recently, Rogers’ 80 -page ruling was released, took Apple and its executives to seize court orders in its original case with Fortnite Maker Epic Games. Although Apple has won this round to a large extent, as it was determined that the giant technician was not a monopoly, the court decided that Apple was behaving in a particular area in a particular area: it does not allow application developers to offer customers other ways to pay out of the Apple Payment Plat.
The judge has decided that developers should be able to be linked to other ways to make purchases from their applications so that they can process payments through their own systems and payment systems. In this way, the developers should have been able to resign from the payment of the 30% of Apple for in -app purchases.
Apple, however, made it even more burdensome for any developers who chose this option. It only dropped its supply to 27% for these external markets and added “terrorism screens”: warnings to prevent customers who may be tempted to move on to foreign markets. With only a 3% discount from Apple’s original commission, this method could end up costing developers even more when taking into account their own payment processing charges.
As a result, Apple protects the profitable business model of the App Store at the expense of its reputation, its relationship with the iOS developer community and its good state of law.
In Rogers’ decision, it is clear that he had several Apple tactics and the decision is full of juicy tidbits where he clearly expresses it.
Apple responded to the court’s ruling with the following statement: “We strongly disagree with the ruling.
TechCrunch event
Berkeley, ca
|
June 5
Book now
If you do not have time to read all 80 pages, we have rounded some of the best pieces below.
The judge calls on Apple to try to launch around her original orders
“Apple’s response to Apple executives, after two groups of evidence, the truth emerged, Apple, despite knowing its obligations, ruled out the goals of the order and continued its antithetical behavior solely to maintain its revenue flow. He would not see through the obvious coverage (the hearing of 2024). ”
The judge accuses that Apple is even more antithetical and is under an oath
“In strong contrast to Apple’s original testimony in court, modern business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what she was doing and at every turn she chose the most contradictory choice.
“Cook has chosen badly”: Judge CEO Slams Tim Cook to listen to CFO advice
“Internally, Phillip Schiller had argued that Apple was complying with the command, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and allowed to explore Chair Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him differently.
…
“As Mr Schiller did not support a commission and Mr Maestri fully supported the lucrative approach, Mr Cook was the tie.”
(Anyone who observes that Maestri is no longer in Apple, by the way?)
“This is an order, not a negotiation”: the judge says that Apple is going to comply now
“This is an order, not a negotiation. Out -of -application purchases.”
The judge says Apple delayed the procedure for protecting its profits
“Apple has been dealing with tactics to delay the process.
“Finally, Epic and Apple hired three special teachers to review Apple’s requirements after reviewing it.
…
“The court also finds that the abuse of Apple’s privileges to abuse the lawyer-lawyer for delaying proceedings and gathering the decision-making process justifies sanctions to prevent Apple’s future abuse.
Apple hid the court decision making
“In its simplest configuration, the” connected markets “after the ban are the markets provided by the Apple platform, but from which the consumer can leave the platform using a connection to the application. the court ruling procedure only to disclose it in the second hearing of evidence in 2025. “
…
“Apple codified its activities on compliance with the ban as ‘Project Michigan’ … When the ninth circuit issued its stay on December 8, 2021 (DKT.841), Apple seems to have stopped compliance attempts.”
Apple knew that she did not comply with the command
“Although the court now has evidence that Apple has investigated the landscape, it knew how it would hurt the developers and realized that it would not comply with the target of the order, Apple, although it had not decided not to disclose and disclose the court and was not revealed if it had not revealed it.
The judge says that the vp of the alex Roman funding lies under oath
“The testimony of Mr Roman, Vice President of Finance, was full of bad direction and absolutely lies. He even arrived until he testified that Apple did not examine the comparable to assess the cost of alternative payment solutions that programmers should ensure that they have been facilitated.”
…
“Mr Romanos did not stop there, however, he also testified that by January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what a fee would impose on connected markets:
Q: And I think Apple decided to impose a 27 % pay on connected markets before January 16, 2024, correct?
A. The decision was made that day.
Q: Is your testimony that by January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea which fee is going to impose on affiliated markets?
A. This is right. ”
‘Another lie under an oath: Modern business documents reveal that, on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27%committee, were determined in July 2023.
Neither Apple, nor her advice, corrected her, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or have been hurt (although Apple asked the court to hit another testimony). Thus, Apple will be considered to have adopted lies and false statements in this court. ”
Apple made terrorism screens even more frightening
“Apple has developed a warning message referred to as a” horror screen “to prevent users from using third -party payment options.”
…
“The display on the right is called ‘sheet’, which is a full screen acquisition after the user clicks abroad
link. Moving left to the right, the warning level to the user is increasing. Again, Apple has chosen the most antithetical choice, namely the full -screen acquisition. ”
…
“Again, Apple has decided the most antithetical option, that is, the” even worse “option to include the programmer’s name rather than the application name.
“Few developers signed for the Link Lectrement program (external market links).”
“From the May 2024 listening, only 34 developers out of the approximately 136,000 total developers on the App Store applied for the program and that the rates that the developers could not be known. Apple tried here to mislead. ”
The court believes that Apple has violated the letter and the spirit of the order
“There are many issues with Apple’s argument, first, it is ridiculous to expect from any court to repeat the content of an 180 -page order issued in combination with an simultaneous disorder of a factors. For the spirit of the command when a party is applied,
…
“In short, Apple’s behavior has no excuse: it does not comply with the text of the command, it requires a tense and questionable interpretation of this language, fully ignores the 180 -page order of the court.
The Court states that the requirements for connection transactions were not justified
“Apple’s excuses for these requirements (mentioned above) the credibility of the executive, mainly to underline Apple’s remarkable excuses, Apple does not require developers to sell natural goods to apply for a connection right before the development of a login transaction.
Court holds Apple in contempt
“Apple’s behavior violates the order. Non -compliance is far from ‘technical or de minimis’. The lack of adequate excuse of Apple, knowledge of the economic non -viability of the compliance program, the motivation for protecting the illegal flow of revenue and the new de facto anti -tale Deal with Civil Presformment for Civil Presformation at Civil or Civil Presfore The Civil Proper.
…
“Apple deliberately chose not to comply with the order of this court, with the explicit intention of creating new anti -tagging obstacles that, in fact, and in fact, maintain a valuable current of revenue, a stream of revenue that was previously found antithetical.
