13 ms·

Epic Games has filed a lawsuit [1] and published a Fortnite-themed parody of Apple's "1984" [2] to get some publicity for it. [1] https://cdn2.unrealengine.com

Epic Games has filed a lawsuit [1] and published a Fortnite-themed parody of Apple's "1984" [2] to get some publicity for it. [1] https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4

coldcode 6y ago
They will lose as the TOS clearly indicates the rules and Epic agreed to them. This is basic contract law. Apple has a massive team of experienced lawyers.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  TOS can't violate laws though. A contract that is in violation of the law isn't enforceable. Epic is looking for a judgement to make it illegal.
  - the-pigeon 6y ago
    Expanding on this. The idea that a large platform like iOS can only have apps loaded through a market place controlled by the hardware manufactured is clearly in violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws. However there's no legal precedent on this because no one with deep enough pockets to fight Apple has been angry enough to do it yet. Meaning this could be great news for everyone if this goes to court and Apple loses as they should.
    - dpiers 6y ago
      I don't think that's true. Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles. The big differentiator is that phones have become the most frequently used personal computing device for many people, and we expect the freedom to use it how we want.
      - hrktb 6y ago
        Relation between console makers and game studio is too different to directly trigger the same issues (Atlus wouldn’t sue Sony For instance). But the situation being almost the same, a ruling in one would trigger a tidal wave in the other. There was a fun moment in last year’s vergecast interview with a lawyer on the App store issue, also related to Epic I think. The case of console stores was brought to the conversation, and the lawyer bailed out of it pretty fast with a “there might be similarities but we need to look deeper before saying anything, let’s put that aside for now” kind of answer.
      - ajconway 6y ago
        > Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles. We should! I would love to run Steam on my PS4. But Sony already invests in some studios to develop games for their platform.
      - summerlight 6y ago
        > Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles. In general, those console platform owners have been much friendlier to publishers than Apple (and maybe Google) since game publishers generally have much more negotiation power against console platform holders. Nintendo's primary weak point has been lack of 3rd-party games. MS and Sony compete with each other to gain more exclusive offers and they even provide substantial subsidiary to developers. If you want to enforce your own arbitrary rule at the cost of losing CoD, I don't think it's going to be a good trade-off. Creative contents are usually not replaceable and publishers don't really have incentives to attack game platform holders in this dynamic. The same thing doesn't really apply to App stores since 1. the upfront cost for buying a phone compared to usual apps is much higher (>100x), especially for the premium phone comparable to iPhone, while it's <10x for usual consoles 2. Apple (and Google) also has their own alternative services for many popular apps so hurting competitors by setting arbitrary rules is actually beneficial for them. In short, having a monopolistic status itself is not problematic but exercising it is.
        rsj_hn 6y ago
    - wayoutthere 6y ago
      I think everyone is just assuming that Epic will win. I don't think that's the most likely scenario. The US is a very different legal and social environment than it was 30 years ago. More likely it's going to set a precedent that device makers can do exactly the things that Apple is doing, and more than that, they'll become the norm and you can kiss any "open" hardware platforms goodbye.
    - nl 6y ago
      While I agree with Epic's aim with this lawsuit, one should note that this has no basis in anything except wishes: > The idea that a large platform like iOS can only have apps loaded through a market place controlled by the hardware manufactured is clearly in violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws.
    - briandear 6y ago
      Yet Xbox, Ninetendo, PlayStation..
  - DetroitThrow 6y ago
    Y-yes, basically. I think it's worth mentioning CFPB regularly fines businesses and debt collectors for illegal 'TOS', as certain aspects of TOS are regulated for consumer protection. Similarly goes for HIPAA protections on healthcare provider data.
- metiscus 6y ago
  It may go down that way or not. It is unwise to predict the outcomes of lawsuits of this magnitude. Epic is no small insignificant company with a public defender. Also this suit is probably more of a signal that they mean to have a fight. Epic is not without significant extrajudicial leverage in this situation.
- abnry 6y ago
  I'm guessing the crux of the argument will be that the ToS are illegal in this respect?
  - coldcode 6y ago
    It is likely extremely difficult to win such a suit based on challenging the terms of an agreement that you agreed to repeatedly. Every single change to the TOS for a developer account requires acceptance. I doubt there is any part of this agreement that Apple did not write with this exact circumstance in mind. No matter what Epic challenges based on this argument in the end they will give in and look like fools. Maybe if they are lucky Apple will lower the % by a little. This is not cutting edge law here.
    - atavisticapple 6y ago
      I'm not sure why you feel qualified to comment on the legal aspects on this case based on just a primitive understanding of offer and acceptance (which isn't the point of contention here). You can't have an enforceable contractual term that is illegal, even if both parties have agreed to it. The legal issue is whether Apple's ToS contravenes some aspect of competition law.
      - onemiketwelve 6y ago
        Maybe he's both a programmer and practices contract law on the side
      - nodamage 6y ago
        IANAL but my understanding of antitrust cases is that voluntary consent to a EULA is indeed a relevant factor in determining market power for antitrust claims. See the discussion in Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC: > Blizzard raises this argument in its motion, contending that Defendants cannot establish antitrust claims based on its users' voluntary consent to the EULA and TOU. (Mot. Br. 22–23.) Although Blizzard does not argue this point in the market power analysis, the Court finds that this discussion is applicable to whether the market power requirement is established. Blizzard cites Newcal, Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430, 441 (3d Cir.1997), and Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1201 (N.D.Cal.2008), to show that Defendants cannot base its claims on the aftermarket restrictions. ( See Opp'n Br. 17.) These cases explain that the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from asserting an antitrust claim “resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant” when they purchased the initial tying product. https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-software-llc https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-s...
- Neil44 6y ago
  Epic also has lawyers. This bit is just a quick chess opening, the real battle is a few moves down the line from here.
racl101 6y ago
Tim Apple Goldstein.
cordite 6y ago
Wow looks like they came prepared.
js2 6y ago
I like the parody, but it's not really equivalent. The original Apple parody was to convince consumers to switch from one platform (PC) to a different platform (Mac). Now, maybe you believe Apple, in the form of iOS, has become Big Brother. Fine, in that case, Epic should provide its own gaming platform. But Epic isn't trying to destroy Big Brother here. It still wants to run on Big Brother's platform. It just doesn't want to give up any revenue to do so. Shrug.
- dgrin91 6y ago
  Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading. So no, Epic doesn't want to run on Big Brother's platform.
  - cjaybo 6y ago
    iOS is the platform in the parent's analogy, not the app store.
    - AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
      iPhone is the platform too! All the investments apple make in custom silicon and hardware are a big part of it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    > Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading. That argument would ring less hollow had they done that on the platform that does allow side loading, but they eventually published on the Google Play store.
    - gpm 6y ago
      They do also still allow sideloading on android. Which was actually what their update did on Apple too (you can buy things via apple pay, or directly from us for less money) Actually they just got banned on android as well, so now they only allow sideloading on android.
etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
The lawsuit literally references 1984 and Orwell, and the ad... Hilarious!
BurningFrog 6y ago
Epic!
ulfw 6y ago
A PR stunt from Epic and everyone's falling for it.
- 5cott0 6y ago
  Everyone fell for the Hey! stunt too what do you expect?
  - m11a 6y ago
    I think the difference there is that Basecamp really is a small player compared to Apple, and it's bootstrapped. DHH's parade was a little tiring but he at least had a reasonable 'moral leg' to stand on. Epic Games doesn't even come close to that.
- tommymachine 6y ago
  Just thought this and came here to say the same. Well done then Epic.
- dmix 6y ago
  My favourite is trying to spin two billion dollar companies fighting over percentages as some “big brother” battle. I don’t remember this part of 1984.
  - eckza 6y ago
    We've always been fighting against Eastasia.
  - algorithmsRcool 6y ago
    Epic might not be the little guy, but Apple is worth almost $2 Trillion. That is a pretty big brother.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      Epic is not a little guy but they certainly are the little guy in this fight.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

coldcode 6y ago

They will lose as the TOS clearly indicates the rules and Epic agreed to them. This is basic contract law. Apple has a massive team of experienced lawyers.

bluedevil2k 6y ago
TOS can't violate laws though. A contract that is in violation of the law isn't enforceable. Epic is looking for a judgement to make it illegal.
- the-pigeon 6y ago
  Expanding on this. The idea that a large platform like iOS can only have apps loaded through a market place controlled by the hardware manufactured is clearly in violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws. However there's no legal precedent on this because no one with deep enough pockets to fight Apple has been angry enough to do it yet. Meaning this could be great news for everyone if this goes to court and Apple loses as they should.
  - dpiers 6y ago
    I don't think that's true. Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles. The big differentiator is that phones have become the most frequently used personal computing device for many people, and we expect the freedom to use it how we want.
    - hrktb 6y ago
      Relation between console makers and game studio is too different to directly trigger the same issues (Atlus wouldn’t sue Sony For instance). But the situation being almost the same, a ruling in one would trigger a tidal wave in the other. There was a fun moment in last year’s vergecast interview with a lawyer on the App store issue, also related to Epic I think. The case of console stores was brought to the conversation, and the lawyer bailed out of it pretty fast with a “there might be similarities but we need to look deeper before saying anything, let’s put that aside for now” kind of answer.
    - ajconway 6y ago
      > Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles. We should! I would love to run Steam on my PS4. But Sony already invests in some studios to develop games for their platform.
    - summerlight 6y ago
      > Almost no one is complaining about Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo's "monopolies" on what software runs on their video game consoles. In general, those console platform owners have been much friendlier to publishers than Apple (and maybe Google) since game publishers generally have much more negotiation power against console platform holders. Nintendo's primary weak point has been lack of 3rd-party games. MS and Sony compete with each other to gain more exclusive offers and they even provide substantial subsidiary to developers. If you want to enforce your own arbitrary rule at the cost of losing CoD, I don't think it's going to be a good trade-off. Creative contents are usually not replaceable and publishers don't really have incentives to attack game platform holders in this dynamic. The same thing doesn't really apply to App stores since 1. the upfront cost for buying a phone compared to usual apps is much higher (>100x), especially for the premium phone comparable to iPhone, while it's <10x for usual consoles 2. Apple (and Google) also has their own alternative services for many popular apps so hurting competitors by setting arbitrary rules is actually beneficial for them. In short, having a monopolistic status itself is not problematic but exercising it is.
      - rsj_hn 6y ago
  - wayoutthere 6y ago
    I think everyone is just assuming that Epic will win. I don't think that's the most likely scenario. The US is a very different legal and social environment than it was 30 years ago. More likely it's going to set a precedent that device makers can do exactly the things that Apple is doing, and more than that, they'll become the norm and you can kiss any "open" hardware platforms goodbye.
  - nl 6y ago
    While I agree with Epic's aim with this lawsuit, one should note that this has no basis in anything except wishes: > The idea that a large platform like iOS can only have apps loaded through a market place controlled by the hardware manufactured is clearly in violation of the spirit of anti-trust laws.
  - briandear 6y ago
    Yet Xbox, Ninetendo, PlayStation..
- DetroitThrow 6y ago
  Y-yes, basically. I think it's worth mentioning CFPB regularly fines businesses and debt collectors for illegal 'TOS', as certain aspects of TOS are regulated for consumer protection. Similarly goes for HIPAA protections on healthcare provider data.
metiscus 6y ago
It may go down that way or not. It is unwise to predict the outcomes of lawsuits of this magnitude. Epic is no small insignificant company with a public defender. Also this suit is probably more of a signal that they mean to have a fight. Epic is not without significant extrajudicial leverage in this situation.
abnry 6y ago
I'm guessing the crux of the argument will be that the ToS are illegal in this respect?
- coldcode 6y ago
  It is likely extremely difficult to win such a suit based on challenging the terms of an agreement that you agreed to repeatedly. Every single change to the TOS for a developer account requires acceptance. I doubt there is any part of this agreement that Apple did not write with this exact circumstance in mind. No matter what Epic challenges based on this argument in the end they will give in and look like fools. Maybe if they are lucky Apple will lower the % by a little. This is not cutting edge law here.
  - atavisticapple 6y ago
    I'm not sure why you feel qualified to comment on the legal aspects on this case based on just a primitive understanding of offer and acceptance (which isn't the point of contention here). You can't have an enforceable contractual term that is illegal, even if both parties have agreed to it. The legal issue is whether Apple's ToS contravenes some aspect of competition law.
    - onemiketwelve 6y ago
      Maybe he's both a programmer and practices contract law on the side
    - nodamage 6y ago
      IANAL but my understanding of antitrust cases is that voluntary consent to a EULA is indeed a relevant factor in determining market power for antitrust claims. See the discussion in Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC: > Blizzard raises this argument in its motion, contending that Defendants cannot establish antitrust claims based on its users' voluntary consent to the EULA and TOU. (Mot. Br. 22–23.) Although Blizzard does not argue this point in the market power analysis, the Court finds that this discussion is applicable to whether the market power requirement is established. Blizzard cites Newcal, Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430, 441 (3d Cir.1997), and Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1201 (N.D.Cal.2008), to show that Defendants cannot base its claims on the aftermarket restrictions. ( See Opp'n Br. 17.) These cases explain that the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from asserting an antitrust claim “resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant” when they purchased the initial tying product. https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-software-llc https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-s...
Neil44 6y ago
Epic also has lawyers. This bit is just a quick chess opening, the real battle is a few moves down the line from here.

racl101 6y ago

Tim Apple Goldstein.

cordite 6y ago

Wow looks like they came prepared.

js2 6y ago

I like the parody, but it's not really equivalent. The original Apple parody was to convince consumers to switch from one platform (PC) to a different platform (Mac). Now, maybe you believe Apple, in the form of iOS, has become Big Brother. Fine, in that case, Epic should provide its own gaming platform. But Epic isn't trying to destroy Big Brother here. It still wants to run on Big Brother's platform. It just doesn't want to give up any revenue to do so. Shrug.

dgrin91 6y ago
Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading. So no, Epic doesn't want to run on Big Brother's platform.
- cjaybo 6y ago
  iOS is the platform in the parent's analogy, not the app store.
  - AdamJacobMuller 6y ago
    iPhone is the platform too! All the investments apple make in custom silicon and hardware are a big part of it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  > Epic stated that they want to create their own separate app store outside of apple, but are unable to because apple does not allow sideloading. That argument would ring less hollow had they done that on the platform that does allow side loading, but they eventually published on the Google Play store.
  - gpm 6y ago
    They do also still allow sideloading on android. Which was actually what their update did on Apple too (you can buy things via apple pay, or directly from us for less money) Actually they just got banned on android as well, so now they only allow sideloading on android.

etaioinshrdlu 6y ago

The lawsuit literally references 1984 and Orwell, and the ad... Hilarious!

BurningFrog 6y ago

Epic!

ulfw 6y ago

A PR stunt from Epic and everyone's falling for it.

5cott0 6y ago
Everyone fell for the Hey! stunt too what do you expect?
- m11a 6y ago
  I think the difference there is that Basecamp really is a small player compared to Apple, and it's bootstrapped. DHH's parade was a little tiring but he at least had a reasonable 'moral leg' to stand on. Epic Games doesn't even come close to that.
tommymachine 6y ago
Just thought this and came here to say the same. Well done then Epic.
dmix 6y ago
My favourite is trying to spin two billion dollar companies fighting over percentages as some “big brother” battle. I don’t remember this part of 1984.
- eckza 6y ago
  We've always been fighting against Eastasia.
- algorithmsRcool 6y ago
  Epic might not be the little guy, but Apple is worth almost $2 Trillion. That is a pretty big brother.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Epic is not a little guy but they certainly are the little guy in this fight.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]