5 ms·

> 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 th

> 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
    Hey, if you want references to how market power is defined, them I recommend that you read this link. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... This is the definition that I am referring to when talking about what the FTC is referring too regarding market and monopoly power. And according to the FTC, all that is required to fall under section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act is significant and durable market power.
    - nodamage 6y ago
      You didn't answer any of my questions.

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
  Hey, if you want references to how market power is defined, them I recommend that you read this link. https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a... This is the definition that I am referring to when talking about what the FTC is referring too regarding market and monopoly power. And according to the FTC, all that is required to fall under section 2 of the Sherman anti trust act is significant and durable market power.
  - nodamage 6y ago
    You didn't answer any of my questions.