4 ms·

Can you link to something that goes into more details about this principle, or give us some search terms? Stated as broadly as you have done, it doesn't sound

Can you link to something that goes into more details about this principle, or give us some search terms? Stated as broadly as you have done, it doesn't sound right to me.

jerf 6y ago
Judicial estoppel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel or the alternate name the article give, "estoppel by inconsistent positions". More generally, the thing known as "common law": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Note that "common law" does not mean "law that is common", at least not on an international scale; it is a specific legal system. As the Wikipedia article says, there are several others. A super super high-level summary is that common law systems take more account of intent and precedent, whereas civil law systems tend to interpret the law exactly as written. A common law judge is more able to look at a litigant and take into account any sort of hypocrisy of their positions whereas I think a civil law judge in this situation would be more likely to simply take the case as is without such external considerations. But, let me again emphasize, that's a super-high level summary.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  Thanks. I'm familiar with the distinction between common and civil law, but that does not seem sufficiently specific to my question to be very helpful. The link to judicial estoppel is helpful, but seems much less broad than the gamblor956's claim. Judicial estoppel involves a party presenting contradictory arguments in separate court cases, not just hypocritical behavior by the party. (gamblor956: "if you take a position in federal court on X... and you are found to be doing not-X in an analogous situation...").
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Judicial estoppel is a lot broader than the 3 paragraph Wikipedia page. It applies to the same court case, to separate court cases, and to actions occurring outside of a courtroom that would affect a court case if such actions have the effect of contradicting a legal position a party is taking in court.
    - jerf 6y ago
      Yes; I was answering the "give me a google term" question (which is a good question I fully support; it sure as heck isn't obvious the answer is "estoppel" to an English speaker), not "here's a full explanation of the concept" not-asked question. I'm not competent to give the latter. Further edit: I was also showing this is a principle in common law. It seems to be pretty rare for a case to be resolved with an explicit resolution that cites the basic principle, and for every principle you can find any number of places where it seems to be violated. Instead, these general principles are just ambiently in the air at all times, so to speak. I wouldn't expect the court to explicitly rule "case dismissed because of judicial estoppel"; I would expect it is something that factors in to the general environment of the trial, rarely in the foreground but constantly in the background. You are going in with a weaker position arguing that entity X shouldn't be doing Y if you are yourself doing Y in a manner that a reasonable person would find comparable.
      - jessriedel 6y ago
        I do appreciate it. Your comment definitely advanced the discussion.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      But so far, you haven't advanced any theory of how Apple's behavior here ("we use external payment in Google's app store") contradicts any legal position that Apple is taking in any court case. You can't be claiming that Apple takes the legal position that external payment handling is illegal in all app stores?
      - e12e 6y ago
        Apple makes eg: Google music use Apple pay in Apple ios store, taking 30% cut. Apple will kick out Google music from app store for not using Apple pay, giving Apple 30% cut. Apple circumvents Google pay, and Google 30% cut in Android app store. Apple thus admits by own action that Apple's enforcement of apple pay and 30% cut is fine for anyone to circumvent, because they do the equivalent thing themselves. And they should not be allowed to kick anyone out of the ios app store for circumventing Apple pay? Apologies if I misunderstood your question, but that was my takeaway from this thread?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Can you link to something that goes into more details about this principle, or give us some search terms? Stated as broadly as you have done, it doesn't sound right to me.

jerf 6y ago

Judicial estoppel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_estoppel or the alternate name the article give, "estoppel by inconsistent positions". More generally, the thing known as "common law": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law Note that "common law" does not mean "law that is common", at least not on an international scale; it is a specific legal system. As the Wikipedia article says, there are several others. A super super high-level summary is that common law systems take more account of intent and precedent, whereas civil law systems tend to interpret the law exactly as written. A common law judge is more able to look at a litigant and take into account any sort of hypocrisy of their positions whereas I think a civil law judge in this situation would be more likely to simply take the case as is without such external considerations. But, let me again emphasize, that's a super-high level summary.

jessriedel 6y ago
Thanks. I'm familiar with the distinction between common and civil law, but that does not seem sufficiently specific to my question to be very helpful. The link to judicial estoppel is helpful, but seems much less broad than the gamblor956's claim. Judicial estoppel involves a party presenting contradictory arguments in separate court cases, not just hypocritical behavior by the party. (gamblor956: "if you take a position in federal court on X... and you are found to be doing not-X in an analogous situation...").
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Judicial estoppel is a lot broader than the 3 paragraph Wikipedia page. It applies to the same court case, to separate court cases, and to actions occurring outside of a courtroom that would affect a court case if such actions have the effect of contradicting a legal position a party is taking in court.
  - jerf 6y ago
    Yes; I was answering the "give me a google term" question (which is a good question I fully support; it sure as heck isn't obvious the answer is "estoppel" to an English speaker), not "here's a full explanation of the concept" not-asked question. I'm not competent to give the latter. Further edit: I was also showing this is a principle in common law. It seems to be pretty rare for a case to be resolved with an explicit resolution that cites the basic principle, and for every principle you can find any number of places where it seems to be violated. Instead, these general principles are just ambiently in the air at all times, so to speak. I wouldn't expect the court to explicitly rule "case dismissed because of judicial estoppel"; I would expect it is something that factors in to the general environment of the trial, rarely in the foreground but constantly in the background. You are going in with a weaker position arguing that entity X shouldn't be doing Y if you are yourself doing Y in a manner that a reasonable person would find comparable.
    - jessriedel 6y ago
      I do appreciate it. Your comment definitely advanced the discussion.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    But so far, you haven't advanced any theory of how Apple's behavior here ("we use external payment in Google's app store") contradicts any legal position that Apple is taking in any court case. You can't be claiming that Apple takes the legal position that external payment handling is illegal in all app stores?
    - e12e 6y ago
      Apple makes eg: Google music use Apple pay in Apple ios store, taking 30% cut. Apple will kick out Google music from app store for not using Apple pay, giving Apple 30% cut. Apple circumvents Google pay, and Google 30% cut in Android app store. Apple thus admits by own action that Apple's enforcement of apple pay and 30% cut is fine for anyone to circumvent, because they do the equivalent thing themselves. And they should not be allowed to kick anyone out of the ios app store for circumventing Apple pay? Apologies if I misunderstood your question, but that was my takeaway from this thread?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]