[philplckthun]

Just some thoughts; I actually found this phrasing really interesting, because clearly “you cannot have irreparable harm when you create the harm yourself” is provably incorrect.

The judge won’t let this influence the decision on not extending the injunction to the Epic Games contract with Apple because of an earlier point, which is that two separate contracts exist. It’s interesting that this has been addressed with this flimsy follow-up argument.

Obviously the court shouldn’t let this influence their decision because it was a calculated move, and it’s assumed that Epic is fine with the harm it causes them to make a point. Nonetheless it’s causing them financial harm, which may in the long term be irreparable if in the meantime their player base on iOS shifts to different games.

So all in all, it is a calculated risk but irreparable harm is indeed one possible outcome. Whether Apple takes any responsibility in this depends on how the court decides in the case however. Even if their behaviour is judged as uncompetitive, that may not automatically mean that they’re at all at fault here.

[hannasanarion]

The judge is using "irreparable harm" as a term of art. What he's saying is you cannot have standing to sue for irreparable harm that you inflicted on yourself.

You can't deliberately crash your own car and then go to court demanding the manufacturer give you a whole new one because the crash revealed a loose screw.

[JakaJancar]

She