4 ms·

If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law. This case is about Epic agreeing to a thing and then reneging on the agreement, then cryin

If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law. This case is about Epic agreeing to a thing and then reneging on the agreement, then crying “look what the evil mean company did!” Apple is no saint, but in this case, they aren’t in the wrong. From reading the filings, Apple has gone to some extraordinary lengths to support Fortnite, behind the scenes, only to have Epic shred the hand that’s helping them.

mschuster91 6y ago
> If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law. This case is about Epic agreeing to a thing and then reneging on the agreement, then crying “look what the evil mean company did!” Courts have invalidated parts of or entire contracts for ages, extortionary practices by a dominant entity being one of the chief reasons. We are just unused to this sort of legal battles.
lostcolony 6y ago
Not at all. Questions of unconscionability, undue influence, whether the contract formed a meeting of the minds, etc, are all up for discussion in court. As with any contract. Without undermining the validity of the idea of contracts as a whole. Maybe you mean the specifics of this case, but until a court decides that, it hardly seems something one is qualified to weigh in on (even if you have a law background or similar).
- drivingmenuts 6y ago
  I’m definitely an outsider on this. However, Epic surely didn’t enter into this contract blindly; they had to have lawyered this thing backwards and forwards and accountancied it up and down. They’re not some small developer doing a gut-check before rolling over and taking one for the team. From where I sit, it’s looking like they planned to do this for a long time, which leads to the possibility that they entered into the contract in bad faith. As for undue influence, etc. - those are immeasurable terms. Ultimately, if you can’t trust what’s on the paper, what’s the point? I have yet to see a filing where Epic shows that Apple didn’t deliver what they said they would. I have seen the filing where Apple lays out what they did do for Epic.
grawprog 6y ago
>If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law TOS's have already wrecked the idea of contract law. A contract isn't a one sided agreement forced upon people with arbitrary changes allowed at any time by only one party at a whim. Terms of services are an abhorrence in contract law.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  One could argue that TOS for electronics and software are simply an extension of the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” mantra of yesteryear. Companies have always been able to have “shrinkwrap” contacts that decide who can visit their place. The argument with smartphones hinges on whether the device is yours or Apple’s. It’s very clearly your device, but it was bought knowing that only iOS could be installed.

mschuster91 6y ago

> If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law. This case is about Epic agreeing to a thing and then reneging on the agreement, then crying “look what the evil mean company did!” Courts have invalidated parts of or entire contracts for ages, extortionary practices by a dominant entity being one of the chief reasons. We are just unused to this sort of legal battles.

lostcolony 6y ago

Not at all. Questions of unconscionability, undue influence, whether the contract formed a meeting of the minds, etc, are all up for discussion in court. As with any contract. Without undermining the validity of the idea of contracts as a whole. Maybe you mean the specifics of this case, but until a court decides that, it hardly seems something one is qualified to weigh in on (even if you have a law background or similar).

drivingmenuts 6y ago
I’m definitely an outsider on this. However, Epic surely didn’t enter into this contract blindly; they had to have lawyered this thing backwards and forwards and accountancied it up and down. They’re not some small developer doing a gut-check before rolling over and taking one for the team. From where I sit, it’s looking like they planned to do this for a long time, which leads to the possibility that they entered into the contract in bad faith. As for undue influence, etc. - those are immeasurable terms. Ultimately, if you can’t trust what’s on the paper, what’s the point? I have yet to see a filing where Epic shows that Apple didn’t deliver what they said they would. I have seen the filing where Apple lays out what they did do for Epic.

grawprog 6y ago

>If Epic prevails, it pretty much wrecks the idea behind contract law TOS's have already wrecked the idea of contract law. A contract isn't a one sided agreement forced upon people with arbitrary changes allowed at any time by only one party at a whim. Terms of services are an abhorrence in contract law.

colejohnson66 6y ago
One could argue that TOS for electronics and software are simply an extension of the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” mantra of yesteryear. Companies have always been able to have “shrinkwrap” contacts that decide who can visit their place. The argument with smartphones hinges on whether the device is yours or Apple’s. It’s very clearly your device, but it was bought knowing that only iOS could be installed.