3 ms·
I'd like to highlight a phrase in the summary here that really stuck out to me. As with some other commenters, it does seem that the judge is not particularly i
by captaincole 6y ago
I'd like to highlight a phrase in the summary here that really stuck out to me. As with some other commenters, it does seem that the judge is not particularly inclined in this argument to side with Epic because it is in the mobile gaming arena, but...
> Fortnite aside, though, Judge Rogers also said she was inclined to agree with Epic's assertion that "there is an uproar in the marketplace about the lack of competition for [distribution of] iPhone apps. You read the papers, I read the papers, it's there." That said, Judge Rogers also suggested this specific case might not be the right one to make that argument, "given the amount of competition for mobile games."
While it looks like this is going to a jury trial, it does leave open a hole for a different kind of app (lets say spotify or tinder (match group)) to try and take a similar argument to court within a different market sector.
- Someone 6y agoI don’t see that. Changing laws because of “uproar in the market” is normal and a good thing (laws serve people, not the other way around), so yes, things may change there. However, because of separation of powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers) a judge, I think, is not the one to make huge changes to the interpretation of current laws. I also don’t see a need for a judge to signal to lawmakers that laws need to change/be created to react to that uproar. The ball already is rolling there (slowly, as it should. A big benefit of government is that it provides stability)