8 ms·

Epic's stance is that the rule was never enforceable to begin with, which would make breaking that rule not an infringement of the contract. But in any case, n

Epic's stance is that the rule was never enforceable to begin with, which would make breaking that rule not an infringement of the contract. But in any case, no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet, and Epic denies their claim, so at the moment the infringement is perceived to exist by Apple, but not proven as fact yet.

abduhl 6y ago
That is a very weird way to interpret the phrase "broke the rule." Just because the rule is invalid does not mean that you didn't break it, it just means that you can't be punished for breaking it.
- stevehawk 6y ago
  It's kind of how it works. Like, if I sign a contract with Company A that is, by legal definitions, invalid, then they can't sue me for breach of contract because it was never a valid contract to begin with. I assume that's one of the arguments that Epic is making here.
  - abduhl 6y ago
    This is a giant misunderstanding of how contract law works. Company A can certainly sue you for breach of contract and the burden of proof would be on you to show that the contract is invalid. The law looks kindly upon the aggrieved party and frowns upon parties that breach a contract. I'm sure you can come up with plenty of examples of contracts that are on their face invalid and which would be ludicrous to sue over ("what if it was a contract to kill someone!?"); however, the contract at issue here is certainly not so clear cut and, even in those cases, they could still sue you for breach of contract and you would need to still prove that the contract is invalid (no matter how easily it could be done). A subsidiary question: if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it?
    - stale2002 6y ago
      The point being that the rules are arguably illegal. So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". > if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it? Because Apple has significant market power, as defined by US anti-trust law, and is using that market power in an illegal manner? Thats the point. Apple is illegally using its market power, to push these contracts.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        > So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". That's because they did. Apple's developer agreement (like most contracts) has a severability clause that says if any individual term of the contract is unenforceable, the rest of the contract still remains in effect. This means that even if Epic's theory of the case is right, they still breached the contract by sneaking hidden code into the App Store, and Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract. No, not if ending the contract helps them maintain their significant market power, and helps Apple continue their illegal anti-competitive behavior, or helps keep out competitors. The courts have ruled in the past, that if enforcement of certain contract provisions helps a company maintain their significant market power, then this all falls under anti-competitive behavior, and can all be illegal. This is generally referred to as the concept of "monopoly maintenance". Contract enforcement, that would be otherwise legal in other situations, can be illegal, if it is helps maintain a companies market position. > That's because they did. Nope. Companies have no obligation to follow illegally anti-competitive contracts. If the contract is illegally anti-competitive, then they can break it. And the company that is trying to maintain their illegally anti-competitive market position can be forced to take certain actions, and continue to deal with the company that was within their rights to not follow the anti-competitive contract.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  That goes to political philosophy and the concept "A law not enforced is no law at all." Technically, some states still have laws in the books that certain types of sex is punishable as "sodomy," regardless of the consent of the practitioners. Since the US Supreme Court ruled that it's a violation of civil rights to constrain two consenting adults on how they get freaky in the bedroom, the existence of those laws is utterly moot. Are they still "laws" if nobody can enforce them?
nodamage 6y ago
Not quite. Apple's developer agreement specifically states they can terminate your developer account if you violate the App Store Review Guidelines. The App Store Review Guidelines say you're not allowed to sneak hidden code into your app. Epic very clearly broke that rule and therefore broke the agreement. That Epic alleges some of the other terms of the agreement relating to Apple's IAP commissions are not enforceable doesn't change the fact that Epic did actually break the agreement. (Keep in mind the agreement also has a severability clause that states that if any individual term is found unenforceable, the rest of the agreement remains in effect.)
DarkmSparks 6y ago
And in the meantime Epic is accruing quite the sizable damages claim against Apple. Obviously not as large an amount as Apple stand to lose once a court decides they are stealing from developers, but a tidy bundle for Epic for standing up for us.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- geerlingguy 6y ago
  I don't think Epic is standing up for 'us'. They have their own self-interests in mind, and they stand to gain a boatload of money (from developers like 'us') if they can get a victory.
  - DarkmSparks 6y ago
    I'm 100% sure they have their own self interest in mind. But if it was solely that they could easily have negotiated a fee cut and left everyone else in the lurch. Or perhaps they tried and this was the next step. Either way we all stand to gain from google and apple stores being forced to play by the same rules everyone else has to abide by.
    - viscanti 6y ago
      No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.
jacurtis 6y ago
Epic's stance is that Apple is being anti-competitive and monopolistic. Epic knows that they broke the rule and they anticipated that Apple would react to the breaking of the rule. What they are trying to prove is that Apple can retaliate against a multi-BILLION dollar corporation in a way that not only hits the bottom line of the corporation, but it also has a negative effect on consumers (because ultimately the breaking of Antitrust laws in the USA revolves mostly around consumer damage, not corporate damage). Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer, as Apple takes all these various actions against them. So in this case, they are now doing blanket refunds for this game (which by the way is technically a different game than the one that originally violated the rules on iOS). Epic is making sure that they have done the best for the consumer during each of these reactions that Apple has made. Eventually we will see a court case about this where Epic basically shows exactly this. Apple cares more about itself and its' money than the consumers and made these reactions that do not benefit the consumer, but benefit themselves. Meanwhile poor little Epic, the "victim", continued to valiantly do the right thing for consumers while being bullied by scary Apple. Also they want to show the extent that Apple controls Epic's business. Lastly, if a multi-billion dollar corporation like Epic can't take on Apple... what chance does the independent developer have to take on Apple? Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it. This whole cat and mouse game between Apple and Epic is exactly that. Epic is just collecting ammunition right now to eventually convince governments to do something against Apple's dominance.
- diminish 6y ago
  Awesome reading into everything. It's hard to find such analysis in A$PL related news - as the fanatism of some users seem to be the reason why they do all that evil.
- zepto 6y ago
  Try telling Steam customers that Epic is doing everything right for consumers.
  - dpkonofa 6y ago
    Seriously... the support for Epic here is not only irrational but flat-out misleading.
dpkonofa 6y ago
>no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet The court hasn't ruled yet but the judge on the case has agreed with all of Apple's responses and denied all of Epic's claims in the preliminary injunction. The only action taken was to prevent Apple from continuing further action based on what's in the terms until damages could be established.

abduhl 6y ago

That is a very weird way to interpret the phrase "broke the rule." Just because the rule is invalid does not mean that you didn't break it, it just means that you can't be punished for breaking it.

stevehawk 6y ago
It's kind of how it works. Like, if I sign a contract with Company A that is, by legal definitions, invalid, then they can't sue me for breach of contract because it was never a valid contract to begin with. I assume that's one of the arguments that Epic is making here.
- abduhl 6y ago
  This is a giant misunderstanding of how contract law works. Company A can certainly sue you for breach of contract and the burden of proof would be on you to show that the contract is invalid. The law looks kindly upon the aggrieved party and frowns upon parties that breach a contract. I'm sure you can come up with plenty of examples of contracts that are on their face invalid and which would be ludicrous to sue over ("what if it was a contract to kill someone!?"); however, the contract at issue here is certainly not so clear cut and, even in those cases, they could still sue you for breach of contract and you would need to still prove that the contract is invalid (no matter how easily it could be done). A subsidiary question: if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it?
  - stale2002 6y ago
    The point being that the rules are arguably illegal. So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". > if the contract is so obviously illegal, why did you (or Epic) agree to it? Because Apple has significant market power, as defined by US anti-trust law, and is using that market power in an illegal manner? Thats the point. Apple is illegally using its market power, to push these contracts.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      > So it does not make sense to phrase this conversation as "They broke the rules!", because that is implying that they did something "wrong". That's because they did. Apple's developer agreement (like most contracts) has a severability clause that says if any individual term of the contract is unenforceable, the rest of the contract still remains in effect. This means that even if Epic's theory of the case is right, they still breached the contract by sneaking hidden code into the App Store, and Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > Apple can still legally exercise their right to terminate the contract. No, not if ending the contract helps them maintain their significant market power, and helps Apple continue their illegal anti-competitive behavior, or helps keep out competitors. The courts have ruled in the past, that if enforcement of certain contract provisions helps a company maintain their significant market power, then this all falls under anti-competitive behavior, and can all be illegal. This is generally referred to as the concept of "monopoly maintenance". Contract enforcement, that would be otherwise legal in other situations, can be illegal, if it is helps maintain a companies market position. > That's because they did. Nope. Companies have no obligation to follow illegally anti-competitive contracts. If the contract is illegally anti-competitive, then they can break it. And the company that is trying to maintain their illegally anti-competitive market position can be forced to take certain actions, and continue to deal with the company that was within their rights to not follow the anti-competitive contract.
shadowgovt 6y ago
That goes to political philosophy and the concept "A law not enforced is no law at all." Technically, some states still have laws in the books that certain types of sex is punishable as "sodomy," regardless of the consent of the practitioners. Since the US Supreme Court ruled that it's a violation of civil rights to constrain two consenting adults on how they get freaky in the bedroom, the existence of those laws is utterly moot. Are they still "laws" if nobody can enforce them?

nodamage 6y ago

Not quite. Apple's developer agreement specifically states they can terminate your developer account if you violate the App Store Review Guidelines. The App Store Review Guidelines say you're not allowed to sneak hidden code into your app. Epic very clearly broke that rule and therefore broke the agreement. That Epic alleges some of the other terms of the agreement relating to Apple's IAP commissions are not enforceable doesn't change the fact that Epic did actually break the agreement. (Keep in mind the agreement also has a severability clause that states that if any individual term is found unenforceable, the rest of the agreement remains in effect.)

DarkmSparks 6y ago

And in the meantime Epic is accruing quite the sizable damages claim against Apple. Obviously not as large an amount as Apple stand to lose once a court decides they are stealing from developers, but a tidy bundle for Epic for standing up for us.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
geerlingguy 6y ago
I don't think Epic is standing up for 'us'. They have their own self-interests in mind, and they stand to gain a boatload of money (from developers like 'us') if they can get a victory.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  I'm 100% sure they have their own self interest in mind. But if it was solely that they could easily have negotiated a fee cut and left everyone else in the lurch. Or perhaps they tried and this was the next step. Either way we all stand to gain from google and apple stores being forced to play by the same rules everyone else has to abide by.
  - viscanti 6y ago
    No business is forced to deal with anyone else. So google and apple stores are playing by the same rules as every other store in the world. Companies can't win a lawsuit against Whole Foods for not allowing their products to be sold in Whole Foods. Apple and Google have both seen how the completely open app download model works (it's been how PCs have worked for a long time). Most consumers want their phones to work and not have any risk of downloading spyware or viruses or apps that brick their phone. Most consumers don't want to research every app to see if the app is trustworthy enough to trust with their identity information or payment information. That said, there's probably a middle ground between where Apple/Google are now and a completely open marketplace that gets most customers what they're hoping to get while also giving larger app developers more of what they want.

jacurtis 6y ago

Epic's stance is that Apple is being anti-competitive and monopolistic. Epic knows that they broke the rule and they anticipated that Apple would react to the breaking of the rule. What they are trying to prove is that Apple can retaliate against a multi-BILLION dollar corporation in a way that not only hits the bottom line of the corporation, but it also has a negative effect on consumers (because ultimately the breaking of Antitrust laws in the USA revolves mostly around consumer damage, not corporate damage). Epic is making sure that they do everything "right" in the best interest of the consumer, as Apple takes all these various actions against them. So in this case, they are now doing blanket refunds for this game (which by the way is technically a different game than the one that originally violated the rules on iOS). Epic is making sure that they have done the best for the consumer during each of these reactions that Apple has made. Eventually we will see a court case about this where Epic basically shows exactly this. Apple cares more about itself and its' money than the consumers and made these reactions that do not benefit the consumer, but benefit themselves. Meanwhile poor little Epic, the "victim", continued to valiantly do the right thing for consumers while being bullied by scary Apple. Also they want to show the extent that Apple controls Epic's business. Lastly, if a multi-billion dollar corporation like Epic can't take on Apple... what chance does the independent developer have to take on Apple? Everyone must play by Apple's rules or pay the dire consequences for it. This whole cat and mouse game between Apple and Epic is exactly that. Epic is just collecting ammunition right now to eventually convince governments to do something against Apple's dominance.

diminish 6y ago
Awesome reading into everything. It's hard to find such analysis in A$PL related news - as the fanatism of some users seem to be the reason why they do all that evil.
zepto 6y ago
Try telling Steam customers that Epic is doing everything right for consumers.
- dpkonofa 6y ago
  Seriously... the support for Epic here is not only irrational but flat-out misleading.

dpkonofa 6y ago

>no court has ruled in Apple's favor yet The court hasn't ruled yet but the judge on the case has agreed with all of Apple's responses and denied all of Epic's claims in the preliminary injunction. The only action taken was to prevent Apple from continuing further action based on what's in the terms until damages could be established.