4 ms·

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

by 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.
        nodamage 6y ago
        Before I engage any further can you clarify whether 1) you are American and 2) you have any actual experience with US law? Also, since you claim "courts have ruled in the past" can you clarify which specific legal cases you are referring to?
        stale2002 6y ago
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?

by 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.
      - nodamage 6y ago
        Before I engage any further can you clarify whether 1) you are American and 2) you have any actual experience with US law? Also, since you claim "courts have ruled in the past" can you clarify which specific legal cases you are referring to?
        stale2002 6y ago

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?