Apple told the court that it was complying with part of the injunction it received after the Epic Games app store trial, as the company sought to delay implementation of other parts of the ruling.Apple appealed and asked for a stay of the injunction in early October after U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers ruled in the EpIC-Apple lawsuit in September.
In a new court filing, Apple said it had already done some of the work ordered by the court, but still wanted the rest to be set aside.
These changes include updating the anti-substitution clause in its developer guide to provide more flexibility in contacting users and communicating alternative payment methods to them. However, Apple has not changed the rules relating to external links or metadata buttons for external payment mechanisms. Friday's court filing noted that Apple had complied with part of the injunction and reiterated that it had appealed to stay the rest of it. "According to Apple," I said. Immediate enforcement of this ban would undermine the integrity of the iOS ecosystem." .
Apple reckons that since the courts have held that Apple's requirement to let users sell digital content using in-app purchases is permissible, removing the in-app restrictions will be "a good idea". Force Apple to give away its intellectual property for free and give customers less security and privacy." . Apple further claimed that Epic Games did not have any standing to enforce the injunction because it had no developer account and no current product on the App Store.
In theory, the suspension won't hurt Epic due to the lack of accounts, and Apple believes it would be in the public interest to suspend the rest of the injunction. What Apple has done with its developer rules shows that, "Apple said. The company is working in good faith to improve consumer access to information in a way that preserves the integrity of the ecosystem." .
If the court is unwilling to grant a full stay, Apple insists it should be replaced with a temporary stay, at least while the Ninth Circuit considers Apple's appeal.
On October 23, Epic opposed Apple's earlier appeal, saying such a suspension should not have been allowed because Apple did not meet the legal standard to prove it faced irreparable harm in complying with the rules. Epic's claims include Apple's comments after the trial that the ruling was positive and apple's delay in filing a request to stay the injunction.
A court hearing is scheduled for Nov. 9 to discuss Apple's appeal and other matters. The company has until December 9 to enforce the full ban.