Epic tests Apple with new request: let us relaunch Fortnite in Korea(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Epic tests Apple with new request: let us relaunch Fortnite in Korea
https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22665826/epic-games-apple-reinstate-fortnite-ios-korea-app-store-payment
38 comments
Now Korea has "TOS" Apple doesn't like... Welcome to the other side, Apple :P
Does anyone have specific details on if the Korea law[0], which Epic is using as a basis for this request[1], has the ability to make apple reinstate Epic's account? Since the ban happened long before this law was even proposed, it wouldn't seem like the law would be retroactive.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28366063
1: https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1436105346184056832
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28366063
1: https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1436105346184056832
The law isn't even active yet, to say nothing of retroactive.
It just only passed the National Assembly (i.e. Congress), not even announced by the government. It probably won't happen, but theoretically the government can reject the law as well.
Okay, I have (a bit) more details for you. I got a copy of the bill so I could check the exact wording, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned citizen but I am sure many of you are curious to know so I am sharing it.
First, to understand how this law amendment was introduced, it's important to understand the original act, called the "TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS ACT" which is the main act regulating the sector. Article 50 of this act defines a list of prohibited acts by market participants, and the related Enforcement Decree prescribes a number of punitive measures the Korean Communication Commission is allowed to take against entities found in breach of Article 50 (the measures range from corrective orders to penalties).
Here is the original article:
Korean:
1) All translation is mine.
2) I am not a lawyer.
3) I am only sharing this because I learned so much from the HN community and because I've repeatedly seen requests for details about this law.
4) The bill(Korean): https://likms.assembly.go.kr/filegate/sender36?dummy=dummy&b...
Telecommunications Business Act, with its Enforcement Decree (English): https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawTwoView.do?hseq=50189
First, to understand how this law amendment was introduced, it's important to understand the original act, called the "TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS ACT" which is the main act regulating the sector. Article 50 of this act defines a list of prohibited acts by market participants, and the related Enforcement Decree prescribes a number of punitive measures the Korean Communication Commission is allowed to take against entities found in breach of Article 50 (the measures range from corrective orders to penalties).
Here is the original article:
Article 50 (Prohibited Acts)(1) No telecommunications business operator may engage in any of the following conduct (hereinafter referred to as "prohibited acts") which undermine or are likely to undermine fair competition or users' interests, or allow other telecommunications business operators or third parties to engage in such conduct: <Amended by Act No. 13823, Jan. 27, 2016; Act No. 15858, Dec. 11, 2018> 1. Placing unfair or discriminatory conditions or restrictions on the provision of equipment, etc., joint utilization, joint use, interconnection or joint-use services, wholesale services, provision of information, etc.; 8. Unfairly restricting measures to delete any software unessential to implementing functions of a communications terminal device or measures equivalent thereto; or installing and operating or suggesting any software that unfairly restricts the installation of other software.
Korean:
9. 앱 마켓사업자가 모바일콘텐츠 등의 거래를 중개함에 있어 자기의 거래상의 지위를 부당하게 이용하여 모바일콘텐츠 등 제공사업자에게 특정한 결제방식을 강제하는 행위
10. 앱 마켓사업자가 모바일콘텐츠 등의 심사를 부당하게 지연하는 행위
11. 앱 마켓사업자가 앱 마켓에서 모바일콘텐츠 등을 부당하게 삭제하는 행위
9. For app market operators, abusing their dominant position as intermediary in mobile contents transactions to force upon the mobile content providers the usage of a designated (specific) payment method
10. For app market operators, unfairly and unduly delaying the review of mobile contents submitted to the marketplace [by mobile contents providers]
11. For app market operators , unfairly and unduly deleting mobile contents from the marketplace
1) All translation is mine.
2) I am not a lawyer.
3) I am only sharing this because I learned so much from the HN community and because I've repeatedly seen requests for details about this law.
4) The bill(Korean): https://likms.assembly.go.kr/filegate/sender36?dummy=dummy&b...
Telecommunications Business Act, with its Enforcement Decree (English): https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawTwoView.do?hseq=50189
I gotta say, this is outright spiteful on Epic's behalf. Not necessarily bad, but it's always interesting to watch when companies make things personal like this. It's almost certainly more trouble than it's financially worth to relaunch Fortnite's iOS build in a single country, but I suppose we're here to see how they react.
It is not spiteful to demand what is yours by right. Apple has been abusing their market position for years, and Korea is making legal inroads on fixing that situation. It is well that Epic should demand Apple follow this long overdue law.
> It's almost certainly more trouble than it's financially worth
This is the same company that nuked their money-printer of a mobile game to prove a point.
This is the same company that nuked their money-printer of a mobile game to prove a point.
I wonder why both sides turned down Gonzales-Rodgers' proposition to allow the game back on and place Apple's 30% in an escrow account until the case is decided.
https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1310648048976982016...
https://twitter.com/PatrickMcGee_/status/1310648048976982016...
It is well for Epic for this dispute to remain live in the eyes of the public, because a legislative solution in their favor is possibly more likely than a judicial one. On the other hand, Apple doesn't want the world to see how the sky fails to fall in when their iron grip is slightly loosened.
Probably because it presents a lose-lose situation for both parties involved. Epic is still getting their profits cut, and Apple can't be certain if they'll even profit off IAPs at all. In my eyes, that's legal stalemate.
Really? Of all the countries in the world, Korea is probably the most fanatical about gaming, and the payoff for getting Fortnite into the Apple Store would be considerable.
> Korea is probably the most fanatical about gaming
But Fortnite has never cared about Korea, most of the fanaticism on gaming is for PC games (mobile non-casual games were never big), and Fortnite has never even had any relevance here.
As a Korean, it feels very, very bitter and spiteful for Epic to mention Korea like this. As if... Epic has ever thought of Korea as a somewhat meaningful market for Fortnite.
But Fortnite has never cared about Korea, most of the fanaticism on gaming is for PC games (mobile non-casual games were never big), and Fortnite has never even had any relevance here.
As a Korean, it feels very, very bitter and spiteful for Epic to mention Korea like this. As if... Epic has ever thought of Korea as a somewhat meaningful market for Fortnite.
Sorry, can you provide some more context? What did Epic do to/in Korea specifically to make you feel that way?
So true. Starcraft was the "self-proclaimed" national sport of South Korea for quite some time.
This is hardly spiteful compared to Apple's move to cut off all games made using Unreal Engine from the app store, back when Epic started their campaign. (Apple was only stopped from doing so by the court after Epic filed their lawsuit.)
[deleted]
If they violated rules previously and got booted (and then sued in a very public battle), why would they be allowed back?
Because Apple is legally required to remove the rule they violated.
But it wasn’t the law then when they violated it.
Rejecting an application for app store reinstatement would presumably be a new ban, legally speaking, and would be covered by the new law.
Hmm, this assumes Epic is allowed to submit to begin with. Look at it another way: Apple acted willfully to terminate their developer and business relationship with Epic per their developer agreement, and this was an Executive decision, not a bureaucratic one. So a new submission isn’t likely to result in a “rejection” so much as a termination of the account that submitted it.
I’m not familiar with Korean law, but a change in any law typically isn’t so cut and dry as to obviously result in a new outcome given the same actors and the same circumstances. Obviously Epic will argue that it should be more cut and dry because it is in their interests to make that argument, but Apple also has their own rights and interests to protect and the means to do so.
I’m not familiar with Korean law, but a change in any law typically isn’t so cut and dry as to obviously result in a new outcome given the same actors and the same circumstances. Obviously Epic will argue that it should be more cut and dry because it is in their interests to make that argument, but Apple also has their own rights and interests to protect and the means to do so.
I don't think you're correct here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Epic is asking the ban to be undone, an appeal of the existing ban. The ban was for violating TOS, nevermind the TOS presumably has to change for the Korean market. I could see this going either way if it were argued in a US court, truthfully.
I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other markets. Korea isn't a small market, but it pales in comparison if Epic can use it as a pry bar to get back into US, EU markets on iOS.
I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other markets. Korea isn't a small market, but it pales in comparison if Epic can use it as a pry bar to get back into US, EU markets on iOS.
This would simply open up a new antitrust lawsuit though, since it's pretty easy to connect the continued ban to 3rd party payments which Apple is now legally required to allow.
a) Apple has ~30% market share in South Korea.
b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take.
Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take.
Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly, only a large enough share where you can unfairly manipulate the market using your market share. The smaller the market share, the harder it is to prove it.
It depends on how the law was written but Apple did not ban Epic for "violating TOS", they banned Epic for allowing third party payment. The fact that this form of ban happened to be written in some TOS document is not relevant, you can't use the term "TOS" to shut down the specific analysis of what happened.
If the law does not permit banning an app for allowing third party processing then I would expect Epic to have a good case.
If the law does not permit banning an app for allowing third party processing then I would expect Epic to have a good case.
There is no law that says Apple has to allow developers in the App Store.
And from Apple's perspective, Epic Games has breached their contract in the US so not sure why they would allow them back in the store until that issue is resolved.
And from Apple's perspective, Epic Games has breached their contract in the US so not sure why they would allow them back in the store until that issue is resolved.
>https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unfair-trade-practice.a...
>>tied selling
>https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tiedselling.asp
>>Tied selling may be used as a means of price discrimination in that it may help banks (or other companies) consolidate a customer's business within a single provider.
>>tied selling
>https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tiedselling.asp
>>Tied selling may be used as a means of price discrimination in that it may help banks (or other companies) consolidate a customer's business within a single provider.
Not exactly. The rule they violated was adding something that was a violation of the terms of service at the time. The agreement you sign with Apple is that you'll follow the rules. Once you break those, they have no obligation to allow you in the store. Epic has demonstrated that they can't be trusted. Good for Apple.
Cuz when u have as much market power as Apple, you don’t really have a choice in granting someone market access to your platform. A refusal is potential grounds for a antitrust case. Assuming ofcourse, epic stays within the lines of apple’s other rules which hasn’t been challenged in court.
Not all terms of conditions are legally enforceable.
And it's not as simple as "they are a private company they can do whatever they want".
There are anti trust laws.
Pretty sure the judge said they could be reinstated months ago, with IAP held in escrow until verdict.
Exactly this. They wouldn't be unless Apple decides to do a 180 on booting them.
[deleted]