한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

however, apple recently filed a new filing asking the court to revoke the previously issued injunction. they relied on rulings in two new cases (beverage v. apple and murthy v. missouri) that showed that the previous injunction was no longer effective. the decision in beverage v. apple, a state case, found that apple's anti-bootstrapping provisions were not unfair. this means the federal government cannot contest it, making the nationwide ban no longer enforceable. murthy v. missouri involves the plaintiff’s accusation that the biden administration pressured social media companies to control false information during the new crown epidemic. although it has little to do with this case, the court ruled in apple’s favor because the court required the plaintiff to provide evidence. demonstrate that the defendant's actions created a substantial future risk to them.

apple believes that the judgment in murthy's case is of great significance to this case. it shows that epic's lawsuit lacks substantial evidence and cannot prove that users choose epic instead of other app stores because there is no anti-guidance clause. combining these two cases, apple believes that the court has reason to revoke or limit the scope of the injunction. this means that apple may reintroduce anti-bootstrap clauses in the app store guidelines, unless epic games is involved.

this legal battle is not only about the interests of apple and epic games, but also an exploration of rules and applications. this reflects the complexity within the technology industry and demonstrates a focus on fair competition. ultimately, the court's ruling will determine the direction of this lawsuit and have a profound impact on the future development model of the app store.