5 ms·

Epic alleges that Apple is breaking the law, and breaking the App Store rules was a pretty much required step to establish standing to sue. Is Apple above the l

Epic alleges that Apple is breaking the law, and breaking the App Store rules was a pretty much required step to establish standing to sue. Is Apple above the legal system, such that they should be able to destroy businesses that dare to challenge them in court, regardless of the merits of their claims and before they are even heard?

RL_Quine 6y ago
Where does the marketing campaign fit into your story?
- modeless 6y ago
  Epic has a customer base that won't understand the nuances of the case. If they didn't tell their story to their customers in a way they can understand, they would suffer a lot of damage to their reputation, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, because customers are being cut off from a product they enjoyed. They will suffer reputation damage anyway, but they at least stand a chance of convincing some of their customers that they have a good reason for taking these actions.
- ksk 6y ago
  There was also a marketing campaign for Net Neutrality by pretty much every single tech company. It's perfectly fine that anyone at anytime can raise awareness for their cause. And in this case, the cause is in everyones interest who is losing 30% of their sales to Apple in an immoral tax.
minhazm 6y ago
Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law. Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App Store rules, in fact the judge suggested they do that so their users aren't impacted. They wouldn't be getting kicked off right now and the Sign-in with Apple button wouldn't be getting disabled. They chose to break the app store rules, which they did agreed to, AND they also decided to sue Apple. They could revert their app right now and Apple would restore their account and they could still continue their lawsuit. Epic is just weaponizing their user base in their fight against Apple.
- modeless 6y ago
  > They could revert their app right now and Apple would restore their account You have no way of knowing this and frankly I doubt it. And I'm not sure that it wouldn't weaken their legal position.
  - RL_Quine 6y ago
    Apple literally told them that in court. Remove the crap, and you go back on the store.
    - modeless 6y ago
      Do you have a reference for this?
      - RL_Quine 6y ago
        https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/25/apple-statement-restraining-order-ruling-epic-games/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/25/apple-statement-restrai... "We agree with Judge Gonzalez-Rogers that 'the sensible way to proceed' is for Epic to comply with the App Store guidelines and continue to operate while the case proceeds. If Epic takes the steps the judge has recommended, we will gladly welcome Fortnite back onto iOS. We look forward to making our case to the court in September."
        modeless 6y ago
        You're right. I hadn't seen that Apple had stated this explicitly. I guess Epic filed another motion to the judge to try and prevent Apple from allegedly illegally forcing them to comply, so they're currently waiting to see the result before taking more actions. Edit: Oh, and Epic also says Apple privately threatened to ban them for a year, contradicting what they said in court.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Apple said: submit to our antitrust violation and we'll stop abusing our market position and let you back in. Among other things, Apple does not allow developers to mention competing products or that discounts are available for purchasing outside of the Apple store.
nodamage 6y ago
They already had standing based on the $300 million in IAP fees Apple has collected from Fortnite. They could have simply sued and said "we want our $300 million back". They didn't need to do anything else.
- modeless 6y ago
  Antitrust requires demonstrating harm to consumers, not just to Epic.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    1. Not necessarily. Per se violations do not require proof of consumer harm, for example. Epic's tying claim against Apple is an alleged per se violation. 2. It was already established in Apple v. Pepper that developers had standing to sue Apple over App Store policies. The case then went up to the Supreme Court which ruled that consumers also have standing to sue. 3. Showing consumer harm may help Epic win their suit. But it's not necessary to establish standing to bring the suit in the first place.
    - modeless 6y ago
      Epic needs a strong case, not a minimum viable case. They need to demonstrate the full extent of the problem. An allegedly illegal contract shouldn't stop them from doing that.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        While I certainly agree that Epic needs a strong case in order to win, it's not clear that their actions with regards to Fortnite actually help their legal case so much as their public relations. In any case it seems like the goalposts have been moved from "Epic needs to establish standing" to "Epic needs a strong case". My point was only to correct the former misconception which for some reason has been incorrectly repeated all over this thread.
        6y ago

RL_Quine 6y ago

Where does the marketing campaign fit into your story?

modeless 6y ago
Epic has a customer base that won't understand the nuances of the case. If they didn't tell their story to their customers in a way they can understand, they would suffer a lot of damage to their reputation, regardless of whether they are right or wrong, because customers are being cut off from a product they enjoyed. They will suffer reputation damage anyway, but they at least stand a chance of convincing some of their customers that they have a good reason for taking these actions.
ksk 6y ago
There was also a marketing campaign for Net Neutrality by pretty much every single tech company. It's perfectly fine that anyone at anytime can raise awareness for their cause. And in this case, the cause is in everyones interest who is losing 30% of their sales to Apple in an immoral tax.

minhazm 6y ago

Your comment makes it sound it sound like Apple is breaking the law. Epic could have brought on this lawsuit while still complying with the App Store rules, in fact the judge suggested they do that so their users aren't impacted. They wouldn't be getting kicked off right now and the Sign-in with Apple button wouldn't be getting disabled. They chose to break the app store rules, which they did agreed to, AND they also decided to sue Apple. They could revert their app right now and Apple would restore their account and they could still continue their lawsuit. Epic is just weaponizing their user base in their fight against Apple.

modeless 6y ago
> They could revert their app right now and Apple would restore their account You have no way of knowing this and frankly I doubt it. And I'm not sure that it wouldn't weaken their legal position.
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  Apple literally told them that in court. Remove the crap, and you go back on the store.
  - modeless 6y ago
    Do you have a reference for this?
    - RL_Quine 6y ago
      https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/25/apple-statement-restraining-order-ruling-epic-games/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/25/apple-statement-restrai... "We agree with Judge Gonzalez-Rogers that 'the sensible way to proceed' is for Epic to comply with the App Store guidelines and continue to operate while the case proceeds. If Epic takes the steps the judge has recommended, we will gladly welcome Fortnite back onto iOS. We look forward to making our case to the court in September."
      - modeless 6y ago
        You're right. I hadn't seen that Apple had stated this explicitly. I guess Epic filed another motion to the judge to try and prevent Apple from allegedly illegally forcing them to comply, so they're currently waiting to see the result before taking more actions. Edit: Oh, and Epic also says Apple privately threatened to ban them for a year, contradicting what they said in court.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Apple said: submit to our antitrust violation and we'll stop abusing our market position and let you back in. Among other things, Apple does not allow developers to mention competing products or that discounts are available for purchasing outside of the Apple store.

nodamage 6y ago

They already had standing based on the $300 million in IAP fees Apple has collected from Fortnite. They could have simply sued and said "we want our $300 million back". They didn't need to do anything else.

modeless 6y ago
Antitrust requires demonstrating harm to consumers, not just to Epic.
- nodamage 6y ago
  1. Not necessarily. Per se violations do not require proof of consumer harm, for example. Epic's tying claim against Apple is an alleged per se violation. 2. It was already established in Apple v. Pepper that developers had standing to sue Apple over App Store policies. The case then went up to the Supreme Court which ruled that consumers also have standing to sue. 3. Showing consumer harm may help Epic win their suit. But it's not necessary to establish standing to bring the suit in the first place.
  - modeless 6y ago
    Epic needs a strong case, not a minimum viable case. They need to demonstrate the full extent of the problem. An allegedly illegal contract shouldn't stop them from doing that.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      While I certainly agree that Epic needs a strong case in order to win, it's not clear that their actions with regards to Fortnite actually help their legal case so much as their public relations. In any case it seems like the goalposts have been moved from "Epic needs to establish standing" to "Epic needs a strong case". My point was only to correct the former misconception which for some reason has been incorrectly repeated all over this thread.
      - 6y ago