3 ms·
IMO, the courts should deal with the issue at hand, and not judge if the parties have been being good bois. It's interesting to think about this in the context
by trevyn 6y ago
IMO, the courts should deal with the issue at hand, and not judge if the parties have been being good bois.
It's interesting to think about this in the context of "smart contracts" etc. -- the rule of law is stronger if it is more unambiguously encoded.
If our current judicial system is deliberately interpreting morality, rather than encoding our sense of morality into the laws themselves, that seems like a rather obvious opportunity for advancing legal systems, especially in an age where we will be forced to codify human morality anyway. The check-and-balance can be moved to judging laws instead of individual cases, and a new system can be grown for bringing cases against laws instead of parties.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoIt's not about "being good bois", it's about whether Epic is facing irreparable harm. Epic alleges anticompetitive behavior on Apple's part. Sure, fine, there will eventually be a trial. Epic will probably lose because their arguments are ridiculous, but juries have been convinced by stupider arguments, so who knows how it will play out? In the meantime, Epic has deliberately violated a contractual agreement and has been treated exactly in accordance with that contractual agreement. Epic would like a court injunction to force Apple to pretend like Epic has already won the case in the meantime, alleging that Fortnite and Unreal Engine being banned from iOS is causing irreparable harm to Epic in the meantime. Apple's point, that the judge seems to agree with is "How can we be causing you harm when you did this to yourself?"
- rdsnsca 6y agoIt will not be a jury trial, neither side wanted one.