7 ms·

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 behavi

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
    I understand, but disagree. They didn’t need to violate the contract for creation of a lawsuit. Hell, they could have terminated their agreement and try to contract with apple without accepting the default agreement. They had standing the whole time, albeit with a limitation to arbitration at first instance for certain claims, which may have been bypassed on certain grounds anyway. The temporary restraining order (injunction) application claims they want to be able to post Fortnite on the App Store without scrutiny from Apple and lastly that they regain access to a working developer account for unreal engine. I recommend watching the virtual legality series on this topic which might interest you on the ins and outs of the legal dispute. The latest episode covering Microsoft is here: https://youtu.be/-jXJjllz00I https://youtu.be/-jXJjllz00I Edit: spelling.

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
  I understand, but disagree. They didn’t need to violate the contract for creation of a lawsuit. Hell, they could have terminated their agreement and try to contract with apple without accepting the default agreement. They had standing the whole time, albeit with a limitation to arbitration at first instance for certain claims, which may have been bypassed on certain grounds anyway. The temporary restraining order (injunction) application claims they want to be able to post Fortnite on the App Store without scrutiny from Apple and lastly that they regain access to a working developer account for unreal engine. I recommend watching the virtual legality series on this topic which might interest you on the ins and outs of the legal dispute. The latest episode covering Microsoft is here: https://youtu.be/-jXJjllz00I https://youtu.be/-jXJjllz00I Edit: spelling.