4 ms·

This is what irks me about the “well they agreed to Apple’s TOS so they knew the risks” argument we’ve been seeing regarding their legal dispute with Epic. TOS

This is what irks me about the “well they agreed to Apple’s TOS so they knew the risks” argument we’ve been seeing regarding their legal dispute with Epic. TOS are written in a way to give their authors the maximum amount of power and leverage over the person or entity they’re working with, regardless of whether or not the terms exceed the spirit of general defensive legal strategy. This guy lost a job because helped someone with some basic computer work, something many of us do with our relatives because they see us as “magicians” or whatever and we enjoy tinkering. It’s hard to imagine what additional context needs to be present in order for Apple to be justified in doing this. Just curious: does Apple maintain the right to disable my account if I talk bad about them online? It wouldn’t surprise me, but I guess I should read the TOS.

justapassenger 6y ago
South Park, as often, was on point of that with HumancentiPad episode. It's funny, how 9 years later the problems are not only still there, but at much bigger scale.
ouid 6y ago
obviously TOS written by companies wielding monopoly power are bullshit. We've just defined monopoly too narrowly in the law. Is it possible for me to obtain an equivalent product from a competing company? If the answer is no, then you are a monopoly. If your product is not interoperable with other products that you are claiming equivalence with, then your claims at equivalence are invalid.
- dathinab 6y ago
  I believe monopoly laws should apply to any companies having a "few million" customers and it not being trivial for customers to switch or there not being much choice to switch to. In case of Apple it's neither trivial to switch (you can't move bought apps over) nor is there much choice (in practice it's basically Apple or Google).
  - ouid 6y ago
    I have thought pretty hard about the need to include a fuzzy word like equivalence in my definition of monopoly, what would it take for me to persuade you to adopt my definition?
- paulchap 6y ago
  By that logic, wouldn't any company inventing/developing a new technology be forming a monopoly?
  - ouid 6y ago
    Yes.
- arvinsim 6y ago
  Monopoly laws should be updated to reflect the digital era of today.

justapassenger 6y ago

South Park, as often, was on point of that with HumancentiPad episode. It's funny, how 9 years later the problems are not only still there, but at much bigger scale.

ouid 6y ago

obviously TOS written by companies wielding monopoly power are bullshit. We've just defined monopoly too narrowly in the law. Is it possible for me to obtain an equivalent product from a competing company? If the answer is no, then you are a monopoly. If your product is not interoperable with other products that you are claiming equivalence with, then your claims at equivalence are invalid.

dathinab 6y ago
I believe monopoly laws should apply to any companies having a "few million" customers and it not being trivial for customers to switch or there not being much choice to switch to. In case of Apple it's neither trivial to switch (you can't move bought apps over) nor is there much choice (in practice it's basically Apple or Google).
- ouid 6y ago
  I have thought pretty hard about the need to include a fuzzy word like equivalence in my definition of monopoly, what would it take for me to persuade you to adopt my definition?
paulchap 6y ago
By that logic, wouldn't any company inventing/developing a new technology be forming a monopoly?
- ouid 6y ago
  Yes.
arvinsim 6y ago
Monopoly laws should be updated to reflect the digital era of today.