Read the most juicy bits of the ruling of the Apple Court

Judge IPhone Gonzalez Rogers is angry in Apple. truly, truly Well.

In the newly released Rogers decision, Apple and its executives took the task of challenging the court’s orders in it. The original case with Fortnite Maker Epic games. Although Apple has largely won this tour, as it was determined that the technology giant was not monopolized, the court decided that Apple was acting in an anti -competition manner in a specific field: by not allowing application developers to provide other customers to pay outside the Apple payment platform.

The judge has eliminated that the developers should be able to link with other ways to make purchases from within their applications, so that they can process payments through their website and payment systems. When doing this, developers should have been able to give up the Apple Committee by 30 % on the application operations.

However, Apple has made more accurate for any developers who chose this option. Its commission has been dropped only to 27 % of these external purchases, and added “Brewglings”: warnings to bend clients who may have been seduced by walking on the path of external purchases. With only 3 % discount of the original Apple commission, this method may end at the cost of developers more when their payment processing fees were taken into account.

As a result, Apple has protected the profitable application store model at the expense of its reputation, its relationship to the IOS developer community, and its good place in the eyes of the law.

In Rogers’s decision, it is clear that she had enough Apple tactics, and the judgment is full of modern tales as it clearly expresses it.

Apple replied to the court ruling in the following statement: “We disagree strongly with the decision. We will abide by the court’s order and we will appeal.”

If you don’t have time to read all the eighty pages yourself, we have collected some of the best bits below.

The judge invites Apple to try to guidance about its original orders

“Apple’s response to the pressures of the credibility. After two groups of the demonstration hearings, the truth appeared. Apple, although its obligations according to it, thwarted the goals of the gossip, and continued its anti -preserved behavior. He will not see through clear cover -up (listening session 2024 proofs). “

The judge accuses Apple of being more aggressive than competitiveness and lying under the section

“In a blatant contradiction with the initial Apple certificate within the court, contemporary business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what she was doing, and at each turn she chose the most unified option to compete. To hide the truth, Deputy Head of Financial Affairs, Alex Roman, an outright lie under the oath.”

Cook is badly chosen: The CEO of Slams Tim Cook is to listen to the advice of the financial manager

“Internally, Philip Schiller called for Apple to correspond to the irritable order, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller, instead allowed the financial manager Luka Maystari and his financial team to persuade him otherwise. Cook chose a bad choice … the court refers to the issue to the United States lawyer in the Northern Province in California to investigate the appropriate criminal benefit offers.”

…

“Since Mr. Schiller was not defending a committee, Mr. MASTRI was fully defending the profitable approach, and Mr. Cook was the broken.”

(Which person notices that Maestri is no longer in Apple anymore, by the way?)

“This is a judicial matter, not negotiations,” says Judge Apple will agree now

“This is a judicial matter, not negotiations. There is nothing as soon as the party deliberately ignores the court. Time is the essence. The court will not tolerate purchases outside the application.”

The judge says that Apple has delayed procedures to protect its profits

“Apple has been involved in tactics to delay the procedures. The court later concluded that the delay equivalent to profits.”

“Ultimately, EPIC and Apple rented three special professors to review the Apple Franchise Claims after reviewing. (See, for example, DKT.

…

“The court also found that Apple’s abuse of the lawyer’s privilege naming to delay the procedures and neglect its decision-making process, it calls for a penalty for deterring future misconduct. Apple is punished with the full cost of reviewing the private and epic masters that preceded it.

Apple hidden the decision -making process from the court

“In its simplest composition,” associated purchasing operations “after the irony is the purchases of the Apple platform, but the consumer can leave the platform using a link on the application” commodity transactions and digital services that occur on the developer site on the web within seven days after the user clicks through an external purchase link … to an external web site. … … Apple hid the decision -making process from the court only to uncover it in the second demonstration session In 2025. “

…

“Apple coded its activities related to the” Michigan Project “… when the ninth district issued its residence on the update order on December 8, 2021 (DKT. No. 841), it seems that the Apple has stopped any compliance efforts.”

Apple knew that she did not correspond to the irritable matter

“Despite the fact that the court now has evidence that Apple was achieved in the scene, and she knew how to harm the developers, and she understood that it will not comply with the goal of the upholstery, however, Apple determines it on June 20, 2023, a meeting that it will accuse a committee on the purchases of links, although it has not yet decided this committee … knowing Apple and considering them in these problems.

Judge Vice President Alex Roman, Alex Roman, says a lies under the department

“The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was full of wrong guidance and explicit lies. He even went to testify that Apple did not look at the comparison to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers will need to buy to facilitate related purchases.”

…

“Mr. Roman did not stop there. He also witnessed this until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea about the fees that he would impose on related purchases:

Q: I consider that Apple decided to impose a 27 percent fee on the purchases associated before January 16, 2024, right?

The decision was made on that day.

Q: It is your testimony until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea about the fees that you will impose on related purchases?

This is correct. “

Another lie under the section: Contemporary business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of the Apple plan, including 27 % committee, were identified in July 2023.

Apple, nor her lawyer, is not correct, clear now. They did not seek to withdraw the certificate or be injured (although the Apple requested that the court will strike another certificate). Thus, Apple will be built to adopt lies and distort this court. “

Apple has made its scary screens more terrifying

“Apple has published a warning message, referred to as” intimidation screen “, to deter users from using third -party payment options.”

…

“The screen on the right is called” paper “, which is a acquisition process on the screen after the user clicks on my external
connection. Moving from left to right, the user’s warning level increases. Once again, Apple has chosen the most competitive option, that is, the acquisition of the screen. “

…

“Once again, Apple decided the most competitive option, that is, the” worst “option to include the name of the developer instead of the application name. All this was hidden from the court and was not disclosed in the demonstration hearing in May 2024.”

“A few developers registered for the correlation program (external purchase links).”

As of the hearing in May 2024, only 34 developers out of about 136,000 developers in the application store applied for the program, and seventeen of these developers did not provide purchases inside the application in the first place. I tried Apple here to mislead. “

The court believes that Apple has violated the message and spirit of the upholstery

“There are many problems related to the argument of Apple. First, it is absurd that we expect that any court of the contents of 180 pages that were issued in conjunction with the credibility issued simultaneously. The circles will look at the spirit of the gossip when the litigant applies a questionable interpretation of the irritable matter, especially when this interpretation is designed to evade the goals of the gossip.”

…

“In short, the Apple behavior lacks any justification: it does not correspond to the text of the dysfunction, and requires a tense and skeptical explanation in that language, and this court is completely ignored from 180 pages, and it requires that Apple be on the scale allowed for the ninth behavior of the permitted behavior of vitality.

The court says that the requirements for correlation are not justified

“Apple justifications for these requirements (shown above) credibility, the most prominent, and for the unprecedented justifications, Apple does not require developers selling physical goods to apply for association’s entitlement before publishing correlation transactions.

The court carries Apple in contempt

“Apple’s behavior violates the irreversible matter. Lack of compliance was far from” technology or minimum “. The lack of sufficient justifications, the knowledge of the lack of economic compatibility, the motive for protecting its illegal revenues, and the actual new structure institute, then seen it on good products from the idiot. The IV section does not comply with the IV section.

…

“Apple has intentionally chose not to comply with this court. I did this with an explicit intent to create new anti -competition barriers that, through design and in fact, maintain the flow of valuable revenues; the flow of revenue that already found that the cover had made it worse.