3 ms·

> but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Thats an interesting prediction. So you are claiming that the judge in the Apple vs Epic cas

by stale2002 5y ago

> but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Thats an interesting prediction. So you are claiming that the judge in the Apple vs Epic case will not rule against Apple, in any way, on any of its behavior. That is a strong claim for you to be making. And since you have made this prediction, I will be sure to come back to your comments in a couple months. Because I am pretty sure that the judge will rule against Apple on at least some issues. Probably not the whole thing. But there will be some things that Apple is doing, which will be ruled illegal. The real question is, if this happens, will you back off on your extordinarily strong claim, that absolutely nothing that Apple was doing, will be deemed illegal by the judge? Will you admit that maybe you didn't think this all through?

simondotau 5y ago
I never made such claim. It is not inconsistent for something to be legal today and then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. It may become illegal in future. My prediction of the outcome is, I think, a coin flip between the Judge ruling entirely in Apple's favour, or a ruling that is mostly in Apple's favour but requires a minor relaxation of certain rules around messaging inside apps about alternative methods of payment. (However even in the event of the latter, this would not represent any impediment to Apple requiring a percentage license fee when payment occurs through an alternative method. In which case it would be moot.) For anyone following the trial directly—not just consuming other people's interpretations—it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way, slicing the thinnest possible piece for Epic. It all hinges upon what the Judge determines to be the relevant market, and what is considered an acceptable substitute under the Sherman act. Somewhat ironically, Epic is a terrible plaintiff in this respect since their games are available on many platforms.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. No actually. It would mean that it was already illegal. Thats why the judge would rule it that way. Judges interpret the law. So yes, if the judge rules this way, then this means that you were wrong to claim that Apple's actions were not illegal. And I look forward to coming back to this post when this happens, so that I can show you the explanation of why the actions were illegal on some fronts. > Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Well if the judge says otherwise, on some fronts, we will be able to look back on this post, and re-evaluate then, won't we? > become illegal in future. No, becoming illegal would be if a legislator changed the law. Instead, this case is about interpreting existing law. So if the judge rules this way, then it means that Apple's actions were illegal. They did not become illegal. They were always illegal. But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then. If the judge disagrees with them, and she says that the actions were illegal, they have already made up an excuse as for why the judge is wrong. Personally, I trust the opinion of the legal system. And that means that if the judge rules that some of the actions were always illegal, then that means that the judge is probably right, and you were wrong. > it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, and you take back your previous statement. Got it. Glad you agree that the judge will likely rule that some of Apple's actions were always illegal.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    > Judges interpret the law. So yes, if the judge rules this way, then this means that you were wrong to claim that Apple's actions were not illegal. The matter in question is distinctly novel and any ruling from the Judge will establish a new interpretation of existing law—laws which date back to 1890 and cannot possibly predict the creation of computer software ecosystems. A ruling could make Apple's past actions retrospectively illegal. But that doesn't make them illegal today, before the ruling has been issued. > And I look forward to coming back to this post As do I. I've bookmarked this thread and we shall reconvene when the judge returns her verdict. > But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then. On both sides. > Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal No, I don't. In my opinion, the correct verdict should be entirely in Apple's favour. I disagree with the argument made by Epic that Apple has done anything illegal. But even if the Judge makes some relatively trivial concessions in Epic's favour, it would be a bit rich for pro-Epic commentators to crow if none of Epic's substantial demands are rejected. To the extent I think Apple should change any of their policies around the App Store, it is for the sake of PR and not law—to protect Apple's business model from the coming onslaught of badly conceived "anti-monopoly" legislation.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > No, I don't You literally just said that you think that the judge is going to rule that at least some of Apple's actions are illegal. That is what your previous comment means. If you think that the judge is going to rule against Apple, in any way at all, no matter what, it means that you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, currently right now. So, if the judge in the Apple case, make any action at all, no matter what, on any issue, against Apple, then that means that it is a true fact that Apple was engaging in illegal conduct. No matter how much you dismiss the judge's ruling, if there is any order at all, against Apple on anything, then that means that Apple's actions were indeed illegal, on the things that the judge says. > it is for the sake of PR and not law Well, since you said "not law", then that means that if the judge does anything at all, on any issue, against Apple, then that means that you were wrong about the "law" part of it. > and in my view the correct verdict should be entirely in Apple's favour Oh, the excuses are coming out already! Before even the verdict has been made, you are coming up with reasons to dismiss it. As expected, no matter what the judge says, you will come up with an excuse, to ignore the evidence. What is even the point of pretending like you care about the legal system, if you are going to make up excuses, already, about why the judge's opinion is wrong?

simondotau 5y ago

I never made such claim. It is not inconsistent for something to be legal today and then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. It may become illegal in future. My prediction of the outcome is, I think, a coin flip between the Judge ruling entirely in Apple's favour, or a ruling that is mostly in Apple's favour but requires a minor relaxation of certain rules around messaging inside apps about alternative methods of payment. (However even in the event of the latter, this would not represent any impediment to Apple requiring a percentage license fee when payment occurs through an alternative method. In which case it would be moot.) For anyone following the trial directly—not just consuming other people's interpretations—it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way, slicing the thinnest possible piece for Epic. It all hinges upon what the Judge determines to be the relevant market, and what is considered an acceptable substitute under the Sherman act. Somewhat ironically, Epic is a terrible plaintiff in this respect since their games are available on many platforms.

stale2002 5y ago
> then become illegal after a Judge issues a ruling. No actually. It would mean that it was already illegal. Thats why the judge would rule it that way. Judges interpret the law. So yes, if the judge rules this way, then this means that you were wrong to claim that Apple's actions were not illegal. And I look forward to coming back to this post when this happens, so that I can show you the explanation of why the actions were illegal on some fronts. > Right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Well if the judge says otherwise, on some fronts, we will be able to look back on this post, and re-evaluate then, won't we? > become illegal in future. No, becoming illegal would be if a legislator changed the law. Instead, this case is about interpreting existing law. So if the judge rules this way, then it means that Apple's actions were illegal. They did not become illegal. They were always illegal. But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then. If the judge disagrees with them, and she says that the actions were illegal, they have already made up an excuse as for why the judge is wrong. Personally, I trust the opinion of the legal system. And that means that if the judge rules that some of the actions were always illegal, then that means that the judge is probably right, and you were wrong. > it was clear that the Judge was repeatedly seeking some sort of bone to throw Epic's way Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, and you take back your previous statement. Got it. Glad you agree that the judge will likely rule that some of Apple's actions were always illegal.
- simondotau 5y ago
  > Judges interpret the law. So yes, if the judge rules this way, then this means that you were wrong to claim that Apple's actions were not illegal. The matter in question is distinctly novel and any ruling from the Judge will establish a new interpretation of existing law—laws which date back to 1890 and cannot possibly predict the creation of computer software ecosystems. A ruling could make Apple's past actions retrospectively illegal. But that doesn't make them illegal today, before the ruling has been issued. > And I look forward to coming back to this post As do I. I've bookmarked this thread and we shall reconvene when the judge returns her verdict. > But, of course, I can already see people making up excuses, to ignore the judge, if the judge disagrees with then. On both sides. > Ah, so then you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal No, I don't. In my opinion, the correct verdict should be entirely in Apple's favour. I disagree with the argument made by Epic that Apple has done anything illegal. But even if the Judge makes some relatively trivial concessions in Epic's favour, it would be a bit rich for pro-Epic commentators to crow if none of Epic's substantial demands are rejected. To the extent I think Apple should change any of their policies around the App Store, it is for the sake of PR and not law—to protect Apple's business model from the coming onslaught of badly conceived "anti-monopoly" legislation.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > No, I don't You literally just said that you think that the judge is going to rule that at least some of Apple's actions are illegal. That is what your previous comment means. If you think that the judge is going to rule against Apple, in any way at all, no matter what, it means that you agree that some of Apple's actions are illegal, currently right now. So, if the judge in the Apple case, make any action at all, no matter what, on any issue, against Apple, then that means that it is a true fact that Apple was engaging in illegal conduct. No matter how much you dismiss the judge's ruling, if there is any order at all, against Apple on anything, then that means that Apple's actions were indeed illegal, on the things that the judge says. > it is for the sake of PR and not law Well, since you said "not law", then that means that if the judge does anything at all, on any issue, against Apple, then that means that you were wrong about the "law" part of it. > and in my view the correct verdict should be entirely in Apple's favour Oh, the excuses are coming out already! Before even the verdict has been made, you are coming up with reasons to dismiss it. As expected, no matter what the judge says, you will come up with an excuse, to ignore the evidence. What is even the point of pretending like you care about the legal system, if you are going to make up excuses, already, about why the judge's opinion is wrong?