The two points Apple has brought to the Supreme Court could undo the entire remainder of the case, so of course Epic Games has filed to suggest Apple is totally wrong here.

The Apple versus Epic saga continues with yet another filing, this time from Epic. Even as the company prematurely celebrates its supposed victory, it has filed a strong attempt at convincing the Supreme Court to throw it all out.

Basically, Apple says that the lower courts have flubbed two important aspects of the case. First, the anti-steering injunction exceeds the scope of the case and, second, violating the "spirit" of the law is not how the court of law should determine injunction violations.

Epic's response to this can be boiled down to this: "nuh-uh."

The filing lays everything out, repeatedly, over 35 pages of a PDF.

For the "spirit" versus "letter" argument, Epic states:

"Contrary to Apple's premise, the Ninth Circuit did not hold Apple in contempt on the theory that the text of the injunction allowed Apple's commission, but the spirit of the injunction prohibited it."

The original injunction against Apple pertained to anti-steering practices, which Apple dismantled as requested. However, it was found in violation of the injunction due to how it enabled steering through a permission structure.

The order mentioned nothing about how much Apple's commission is, should be, or if it is allowed to charge one. Which is why when Apple was violated for said new commission, it was done in "spirit."

Epic denies this is the case.

For the CASA exception declaration, Epic states:

"Apple's contention that the Ninth Circuit created an exception to CASA is inexplicable. The panel held that the "test 'is whether an injunction will offer complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court,'" quoting the very test from CASA that Apple insists applies."

Apple's argument here is that this wasn't a class action lawsuit. Therefore, the original injunction should have only included Epic, which is backed up by the CASA case.

Epic, obviously, says this doesn't apply.

I'm not a lawyer, so let's leave it up to the Supreme Court to decide. A decision is expected sometime in June at the earliest.