>"Irreparable Harm: The issue of irreparable harm focuses on the harm caused by not maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the separate and distinct element of a remedy under the likelihood of success factor. Here the court's evaluation is guided by the general notion that “self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.”
To add more color to this, the court refused an injunction to force Apple to enable Fortnite with the Epic payment processing. Epic can remove that and be admitted back to the App store. If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them.
The record already reflects (now) that Apple retaliated against Epic in blocking Unreal Engine. (Granted, the court did not use the word "retaliate" because it was a TRO, not a ruling on the facts; but the implication is clear.) Besides fear of sanctions, why wouldn't they retaliate again, and now harder given that the first attempt at retaliation may be thwarted?
The so-called block of unreal engine came along with a letter asking Epic to put fortnite back in compliance before it would happen.
There’s no indication that apple intended a purely retaliatory action, it was obviously pressure for Epic to come back into compliance with the App Store terms, which is what apple wants - for Epic to follow the same rules as everyone else. Apple makes money with Fortnite on the App Store and getting that 30% cut.
To add more color to this, the court refused an injunction to force Apple to enable Fortnite with the Epic payment processing. Epic can remove that and be admitted back to the App store. If Apple refuses at that point Epic would likely win an injunction to force them.