> "the trial judge did find that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws"
> There's the line there from the article.

You have used terminology that was absent from the article and the decision, namely, "anti-competitive practices." To be quite clear, the decision finding that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws in no way means that Apple engages in "anti-competitive practices."

> > nor, dare I say, does the judgment.

> You can just read the judgement yourself.
> https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games...

> Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law"

Again, see above. You have over reached with your language, and are now trying to sweep that under the rug.

> > Your interpretation

> You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling.

It is not in the ruling. The ruling does not use your terminology, "anti-competitive."

> > Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them.

> They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says.

That is not what it says. It says they violated California's unfair competition laws by not allowing alternate payment methods. It does not state Apple is required to allow outside links. So that is not what the ruling says.

> > The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments

> Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge.

No, because you are using language that does not apply to the case nor Apple. You are being intentionally inaccurate to spin a false narrative.

> > there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling

> Did you not know that this was already the appeal?

Irrelevant straw man. Did you read the article? "Apple may appeal... a larger group of judges on the 9th Circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court."

> > if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim

> Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them.

> If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them.

Then Apple can pull their contract for breaching agreed to terms of the contract.

> > Why would Apple be required

> Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined.

That is not what the judge said. You are extrapolating beyond the scope of the case and incorrectly rewording, and the result is inaccurate at best and false at worst.

> They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law.

The California unfair competition law does not require Apple to allow links.

> > not only are you not right

> Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you.

> The legal system is on my side, not yours.

Unlikely. Laws and judgements are meticulous and specific. If the judgement does not include the order, "Apple is required to allow links to alternative forms of payment," which it does not, then that is not the judgement. The judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws, not that Apple engages in anti-competitive practices, and not that Apple is required to provide links to alternative forms of payment.

Comprehension is critical here.