5 ms·

I'm extremely surprised that Apple would engage in something that could in court be perceived as retaliatory against someone who is filing a complaint regarding

I'm extremely surprised that Apple would engage in something that could in court be perceived as retaliatory against someone who is filing a complaint regarding anti competitive behavior. The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market. By denying Epic access in the game engine market, Apple is trying to get Epic to fold in the game distribution market. Thats text book antitrust behavior. It is shocking to me that Apples lawyers, would allow Apple to so blatantly threaten Epic in this way. They are providing a clear example of anti competitive behavior, for Epic to use in future litigation. You would think Apple has good enough lawyers to put a stop to this self defeating behavior.

DethNinja 6y ago
Technically, Apple is completely in the wrong here and in any country with a sane justice system they would lose this case due to blatant anticompetitive behaviour. However, Apple is also one of the largest companies of USA and a quite successful one. At that size they must have considerably good lobbying efforts, political class might also have connections to Apple through shares etc. They might go and say that enabling third party vendors will cause thousands to lose their jobs at Apple. They basically got a huge amount of political influence and I’m sure they will use it for this case. How much political influence Epic games have? Zero? Perhaps not zero but definitely not at the level of Apple. Hence, this case might not be a straightforward win for Epic. It is good though, perhaps some of the fortnite players will understand why antitrust laws are needed and perhaps influence the justice system once they grow up.
- quelsolaar 6y ago
  I agree. I wrote a long thing about it: https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/1297520275790139394 https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/129752027579013939... I think Epic has been smart to do a lot of PR on this. They need public support since this will become political. I'm surprised that Epic hasn't filed in the EU too.
- kick 6y ago
  Technically, You're using this word wrong.
- s279 6y ago
  Why should a court intervene in the contracting of two private parties? Epic started this fight by intentionally breaching an existing contract with Apple, only so they can get better terms. Microsoft does the same as Apple, it makes money off micro-transactions and the ability for its competitors to sell on Xbox/Microsoft store, use trade dress, and be included in those hideous green media cases. Last I checked Epic, Steam, Origin, uPlay, Google, Amazon, SetApp, most retailers, etc... do the same practice to varying degrees. Shrewd business practice != injustice/anticompetitive practices, just because a company has a large market share or is personally abhorrent to you.
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    The entire purpose of civil courts is to mediate disputes between private parties. Courts are also the mechanism that give private contracts any authority. Civil suits are also one of the mechanisms by which government regulation is enforced. The alternative to that would be the government inserting itself into private relations even when there is no dispute between the parties; which is even more heavy handed (albeit somewhat justified). It is a weird quark that you often have to violate the terms of a contract in order to get standing to challenge it; but that is the procedural rules we have.
    - WorldMaker 6y ago
      The weird quirks are acerbated by Arbitration clauses designed to keep disagreements from ever going to court and instead being handled by "closed door, opaque third party negotiators". Until Apple closed the contract indicating a breach, Epic would have been forced to go to Arbitration to settle the matter, rather than get their day in court.
      - slaymaker1907 6y ago
        Good point, and I assume that mediators probably can’t consider anti-trust matters while courts can.
    - s279 6y ago
eqtn 6y ago
Then Epic should have gone to the court without pulling the stunt
- s279 6y ago
  Agreed!
swiley 6y ago
It’s good for iPhone users though. Hopefully we’ll finally be allowed to compile apps ourselves and install them without approval (and without having to reinstall them every few days.)
misnome 6y ago
> The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market What is the "other market" in this scenario?
nodamage 6y ago
> The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market. Your definition is missing a key point, which is you have to possess sufficient market power in the primary market in order to use to gain an advantage. If you lack market power, it doesn't matter what you do because you lack the ability to coerce consumers. As the Supreme Court put it: If one of a dozen food stores in a community were to refuse to sell flour unless the buyer also took sugar it would hardly tend to restrain competition in sugar if its competitors were ready and able to sell flour by itself. (Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States) > It is shocking to me that Apples lawyers, would allow Apple to so blatantly threaten Epic in this way. They are providing a clear example of anti competitive behavior, for Epic to use in future litigation. Epic violated the terms of Apple's developer agreement by deliberately hiding their payment processing code to get it past app review. Hiding functionality is considered an egregious violation of the developer program and grounds for termination of your entire account. Apple has the right to terminate their contract for that violation alone, regardless of whether you think the terms relating to in-app purchases are lawful or not. Framing this as retaliatory or a threat is hyperbole. One party violated the terms of a contract, so the other party is exercising their right to terminate. > You would think Apple has good enough lawyers to put a stop to this self defeating behavior. Do you really think you have a better grasp of antitrust law than their legal team?
- myhf 6y ago
  >Do you really think you have a better grasp of antitrust law than their legal team? Obviously Apple's legal team does not understand antitrust law. It is impossible to get someone to understand something, when their salary depends upon not understanding it.
  - lucifirius 6y ago
    So no, you don't have a better grasp of antitrust law than the Apple legal team. If they thought they were in the wrong they wouldn't do any of this. It's such a stupid trope in any case.

DethNinja 6y ago

Technically, Apple is completely in the wrong here and in any country with a sane justice system they would lose this case due to blatant anticompetitive behaviour. However, Apple is also one of the largest companies of USA and a quite successful one. At that size they must have considerably good lobbying efforts, political class might also have connections to Apple through shares etc. They might go and say that enabling third party vendors will cause thousands to lose their jobs at Apple. They basically got a huge amount of political influence and I’m sure they will use it for this case. How much political influence Epic games have? Zero? Perhaps not zero but definitely not at the level of Apple. Hence, this case might not be a straightforward win for Epic. It is good though, perhaps some of the fortnite players will understand why antitrust laws are needed and perhaps influence the justice system once they grow up.

quelsolaar 6y ago
I agree. I wrote a long thing about it: https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/1297520275790139394 https://twitter.com/EskilSteenberg/status/129752027579013939... I think Epic has been smart to do a lot of PR on this. They need public support since this will become political. I'm surprised that Epic hasn't filed in the EU too.
kick 6y ago
Technically, You're using this word wrong.
s279 6y ago
Why should a court intervene in the contracting of two private parties? Epic started this fight by intentionally breaching an existing contract with Apple, only so they can get better terms. Microsoft does the same as Apple, it makes money off micro-transactions and the ability for its competitors to sell on Xbox/Microsoft store, use trade dress, and be included in those hideous green media cases. Last I checked Epic, Steam, Origin, uPlay, Google, Amazon, SetApp, most retailers, etc... do the same practice to varying degrees. Shrewd business practice != injustice/anticompetitive practices, just because a company has a large market share or is personally abhorrent to you.
- gizmo686 6y ago
  The entire purpose of civil courts is to mediate disputes between private parties. Courts are also the mechanism that give private contracts any authority. Civil suits are also one of the mechanisms by which government regulation is enforced. The alternative to that would be the government inserting itself into private relations even when there is no dispute between the parties; which is even more heavy handed (albeit somewhat justified). It is a weird quark that you often have to violate the terms of a contract in order to get standing to challenge it; but that is the procedural rules we have.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    The weird quirks are acerbated by Arbitration clauses designed to keep disagreements from ever going to court and instead being handled by "closed door, opaque third party negotiators". Until Apple closed the contract indicating a breach, Epic would have been forced to go to Arbitration to settle the matter, rather than get their day in court.
    - slaymaker1907 6y ago
      Good point, and I assume that mediators probably can’t consider anti-trust matters while courts can.
  - s279 6y ago

eqtn 6y ago

Then Epic should have gone to the court without pulling the stunt

s279 6y ago
Agreed!

swiley 6y ago

It’s good for iPhone users though. Hopefully we’ll finally be allowed to compile apps ourselves and install them without approval (and without having to reinstall them every few days.)

misnome 6y ago

> The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market What is the "other market" in this scenario?

nodamage 6y ago

> The definition of anti trust is to use your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in an other market. Your definition is missing a key point, which is you have to possess sufficient market power in the primary market in order to use to gain an advantage. If you lack market power, it doesn't matter what you do because you lack the ability to coerce consumers. As the Supreme Court put it: If one of a dozen food stores in a community were to refuse to sell flour unless the buyer also took sugar it would hardly tend to restrain competition in sugar if its competitors were ready and able to sell flour by itself. (Northern Pac. R. Co. v. United States) > It is shocking to me that Apples lawyers, would allow Apple to so blatantly threaten Epic in this way. They are providing a clear example of anti competitive behavior, for Epic to use in future litigation. Epic violated the terms of Apple's developer agreement by deliberately hiding their payment processing code to get it past app review. Hiding functionality is considered an egregious violation of the developer program and grounds for termination of your entire account. Apple has the right to terminate their contract for that violation alone, regardless of whether you think the terms relating to in-app purchases are lawful or not. Framing this as retaliatory or a threat is hyperbole. One party violated the terms of a contract, so the other party is exercising their right to terminate. > You would think Apple has good enough lawyers to put a stop to this self defeating behavior. Do you really think you have a better grasp of antitrust law than their legal team?

myhf 6y ago
>Do you really think you have a better grasp of antitrust law than their legal team? Obviously Apple's legal team does not understand antitrust law. It is impossible to get someone to understand something, when their salary depends upon not understanding it.
- lucifirius 6y ago
  So no, you don't have a better grasp of antitrust law than the Apple legal team. If they thought they were in the wrong they wouldn't do any of this. It's such a stupid trope in any case.