4 ms·
>My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court This is obviously false because there are other antitrust cases
by Despegar 6y ago
>My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court
This is obviously false because there are other antitrust cases against Apple pending.
- zamalek 6y agoThat's Government v. Apple, not Epic v. Apple. Furthermore, irrespective of what the outcome of Epic v. Apple is, more people are paying attention to Apple's behavior and the rouse may eventually bear fruit (in the form of more Government v. Apple).
- ascagnel_ 6y agoBlix v. Apple[0] pre-dated the Epic v. Apple suit by about 8 months. [0]: https://download.bluemail.me/docs/01869-Blix-Amended-Complaint.pdf https://download.bluemail.me/docs/01869-Blix-Amended-Complai... (PDF)
- anotherman554 6y agoIt's not obviously false because unless you've read the case law on the legal concept of "standing" you have no insight into the issue at all.
- Despegar 6y agoFortunately I have and they do have standing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]