7 ms·

That's not really the core of the argument here. Epic is arguing that Apple's terms themselves (taking a cut of the revenue that's a direct result of Epic's te

That's not really the core of the argument here. Epic is arguing that Apple's terms themselves (taking a cut of the revenue that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts with zero options to do anything else) are not fair and should be unenforceable given its market position. Basically, breach of contract is only a valid legal basis when the contract itself is deemed legally acceptable. Ex. you can't force someone to sign a ridiculous contract at gunpoint and then sue them for breach later. Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector (mobile gaming in this case). Whether or not someone previously agreed to the terms is not the issue.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector This is a court case. Not a legislative session. Where you come down on it should be based on the law. I believe the law should be changed. But based on existing law, it is difficult to find for Epic. Epic's strategy is, in effect, a high-risk lobbying endeavor.
- warent 6y ago
  Courts can and do make new laws and undo laws all the time. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely, but it is well within the court's power to reinterpret laws quite liberally.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Where you come down on it should be based on the law. The comment that you responded to included facts that would support the idea that Apple's behavior is against the current law. When they said that " said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market" This is a reason as for why Apple is breaking the law. It is an argument that Apple has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions, which is illegal.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    What courts will need to decide is what constitutes a "market." The arguments against Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own iOS devices," while the argument in favor of Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own a smartphone." In one of those, Apple is a monopolist. In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company. Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market. Also, Apple does not need to be a literal, singular company for its actions to be illegal. Instead, it only needs to have significant market power. It doesn't even need to have a majority of the market. > the argument in favor of Apple Actually, no. Apple is making a much more silly argument that the market should be defined as "Things that can run video games", which can include things such as the XBox. If the market is instead defined as the % of people who own an apple smartphone, in the US, then Apple is ~50% of that market.
      - d1zzy 6y ago
        > Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market. Is Epic requiring Apple to only open their stores in the US?
        NeutronStar 6y ago
        Does American law apply in Europe?
      - 8note 6y ago
        Specifically for Epic's case, thing that run video games makes sense. I don't think epic has standing to argue something more generic?
      - 6y ago
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law and that's something that needs to be stopped, whether through tighter legislation or through courts making interpretation of the law in favour of consumers. We shouldn't be supporting a company trying to exploit loopholes to their advantage.
  - ryanlol 6y ago
    > Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law As does Epic, the other party to this case.
- kube-system 6y ago
  The Sherman Act is pretty general in phraseology[0] -- it is a courts job to determine if that description of forbidden business practices from the year 1890 apply to the specific actions Apple is taking today. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1
judge2020 6y ago
> that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS.
- reificator 6y ago
  > Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS. Given the runaway success on every other available platform, I'm going to have to say that's not true at all. IANAL. Epic is trying to bring the product to the customers that want it, and if the App Store and iOS hadn't existed but everything else was mostly the same, then those iOS users would simply be using Android or another similar product. Apple's investment in the platform benefited many (including Google and Android) but in this case Apple doesn't bring anything to Fortnite that other platforms don't. It's just the users Epic is after.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  And I think this is clearly false. Epic themselves have a distribution method that they've developed quite successfully on every platform except mobile, where they're not even allowed to compete because of the arbitrary restrictions Apple and Google have put in place on software distribution. I think Apple's argument is incredibly disingenuous.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> Where you come down on this issue should really be based on whether you think a marketplace cut of revenue with extremely onerous conditions that prevent even minor bypasses should be legal or not when distribution on said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market in the sector This is a court case. Not a legislative session. Where you come down on it should be based on the law. I believe the law should be changed. But based on existing law, it is difficult to find for Epic. Epic's strategy is, in effect, a high-risk lobbying endeavor.

warent 6y ago
Courts can and do make new laws and undo laws all the time. Whether or not they should is another matter entirely, but it is well within the court's power to reinterpret laws quite liberally.
stale2002 6y ago
> Where you come down on it should be based on the law. The comment that you responded to included facts that would support the idea that Apple's behavior is against the current law. When they said that " said marketplace constitutes 50% of the consumer market" This is a reason as for why Apple is breaking the law. It is an argument that Apple has significant market power, and is engaging in anti-competitive actions, which is illegal.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  What courts will need to decide is what constitutes a "market." The arguments against Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own iOS devices," while the argument in favor of Apple all seem to hinge on the market being "people who own a smartphone." In one of those, Apple is a monopolist. In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > In the other, Apple isn't even the biggest company. Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market. Also, Apple does not need to be a literal, singular company for its actions to be illegal. Instead, it only needs to have significant market power. It doesn't even need to have a majority of the market. > the argument in favor of Apple Actually, no. Apple is making a much more silly argument that the market should be defined as "Things that can run video games", which can include things such as the XBox. If the market is instead defined as the % of people who own an apple smartphone, in the US, then Apple is ~50% of that market.
    - d1zzy 6y ago
      > Actually Apple would be the biggest company, in the market of people who have smartphones in the US. They just recently have a bit over 50% of that market. Is Epic requiring Apple to only open their stores in the US?
      - NeutronStar 6y ago
        Does American law apply in Europe?
    - 8note 6y ago
      Specifically for Epic's case, thing that run video games makes sense. I don't think epic has standing to argue something more generic?
    - 6y ago
intricatedetail 6y ago
Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law and that's something that needs to be stopped, whether through tighter legislation or through courts making interpretation of the law in favour of consumers. We shouldn't be supporting a company trying to exploit loopholes to their advantage.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  > Apple has essentially unlimited resources to perverse the law As does Epic, the other party to this case.
kube-system 6y ago
The Sherman Act is pretty general in phraseology[0] -- it is a courts job to determine if that description of forbidden business practices from the year 1890 apply to the specific actions Apple is taking today. [0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1

judge2020 6y ago

> that's a direct result of Epic's team's efforts Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS.

reificator 6y ago
> Apple’s case is arguing (at least in part) that no, epic could not have made all of that money if Apple didn’t first put a hundred billion dollars and 10 years worth of investment into iPhone and iOS. Given the runaway success on every other available platform, I'm going to have to say that's not true at all. IANAL. Epic is trying to bring the product to the customers that want it, and if the App Store and iOS hadn't existed but everything else was mostly the same, then those iOS users would simply be using Android or another similar product. Apple's investment in the platform benefited many (including Google and Android) but in this case Apple doesn't bring anything to Fortnite that other platforms don't. It's just the users Epic is after.
horsawlarway 6y ago
And I think this is clearly false. Epic themselves have a distribution method that they've developed quite successfully on every platform except mobile, where they're not even allowed to compete because of the arbitrary restrictions Apple and Google have put in place on software distribution. I think Apple's argument is incredibly disingenuous.