3 ms·
I agree with you that this case is clear cut based on current legislation, precedent, and ToS (as I understand these, IANAL). I think people are siding with Epi
by AlexandrB 6y ago
I agree with you that this case is clear cut based on current legislation, precedent, and ToS (as I understand these, IANAL). I think people are siding with Epic because it feels like Apple is overreaching and abusing their market power. Unfortunately, the normal mechanisms for dealing with this: regulation and legislation, are so dysfunctional at this moment in history that it does not seem likely that a legislative solution is forthcoming.
Given all this, Epic's actions represent at least an attempt to reign is some of Apple's power. I think that's why people are siding with Epic - because there is no one else doing anything about the walled gardens increasingly going up in modern computing.
What's really scary is what might happen if Apple wins these lawsuits. With legal precedent set, unless there's legislative action to pass new law, it's unlikely anyone will want to challenge Apple or Google's App Store terms in the future.
- sjy 6y agoWhat makes this case clear cut based on current legislation and precedent? In what sense is “regulation” or new legislation an alternative to antitrust litigation? The U.S. has been dealing with alleged monopolies via protracted trials about highly contestable economic facts, based on generic antitrust legislation, for a century now – Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T, Microsoft ...