3 ms·

To be clear, I'm on the side of Epic here, but in rulings like this where it has been judged that someone did some wrong (just focusing on Epic breaking their c

To be clear, I'm on the side of Epic here, but in rulings like this where it has been judged that someone did some wrong (just focusing on Epic breaking their contract) and the punishment is getting them to pay exactly as much as had they done the "right" thing, the expected value is always going to favour doing the "wrong" thing, as sometimes you won't get caught. Any fines or decisions like this should include the likelihood of getting caught and make the expected value negative. A fine for not having a train ticket is not just the price of a ticket.

poniko 5y ago
Why, the curt said follow the terms of contract (Since the contract is valid). Why should you get a penalty because you legally have a chance to dispute a contract? You might need to pay the legal fees etc but the default must be to have the fair chance to challenge what you might seem unfair in said contract.
- AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
  His argument was that if you don't pay all the time and get caught some of the times, then you only have to pay some of the time. If fees is $100 each time and you don't pay 100 times and get caught only 50 times, then you only pay 50 times 100=5000 rather than 100 times 100=10000. And we are talking in tens of millions, so legal fees are negligible.
AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
Very good point. I believe that the judge just gave a slap on the wrist to Epic Games with that fine (that's why it was equal to just the "back-pay") for breaking a contract (which is wrong, legally speaking.) I believe the judge did this (just a slap) because Epic was right and Apple was anti-competitive. I could be wrong though. I have very little knowledge of anti-competitive laws.
- judge2020 5y ago
  I'd have to agree with you, as this lawsuit was a PR play more than anything, especially if it means they don't get their App back on the app store (yet?).
- jdmichal 5y ago
  I'm honestly not sure, because it seems to me that contract disputes should be limited to making the other party whole. They are civil matters, not criminal ones, so why should there be additional punishment?
kllrnohj 5y ago
I think it's worth stressing that both sides did something wrong. Apple's contract was also just ruled invalid, and they also aren't being forced to pay any penalties for that. They aren't being forced to compensate Netflix, Spotify, etc... for all the years those companies have been unable to link out to subscription signups on iOS, for example. So consider instead that Epic and Apple were both penalized an identical amount rather than neither side being penalized at all.

poniko 5y ago

Why, the curt said follow the terms of contract (Since the contract is valid). Why should you get a penalty because you legally have a chance to dispute a contract? You might need to pay the legal fees etc but the default must be to have the fair chance to challenge what you might seem unfair in said contract.

AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago
His argument was that if you don't pay all the time and get caught some of the times, then you only have to pay some of the time. If fees is $100 each time and you don't pay 100 times and get caught only 50 times, then you only pay 50 times 100=5000 rather than 100 times 100=10000. And we are talking in tens of millions, so legal fees are negligible.

AlexanderTheGr8 5y ago

Very good point. I believe that the judge just gave a slap on the wrist to Epic Games with that fine (that's why it was equal to just the "back-pay") for breaking a contract (which is wrong, legally speaking.) I believe the judge did this (just a slap) because Epic was right and Apple was anti-competitive. I could be wrong though. I have very little knowledge of anti-competitive laws.

judge2020 5y ago
I'd have to agree with you, as this lawsuit was a PR play more than anything, especially if it means they don't get their App back on the app store (yet?).
jdmichal 5y ago
I'm honestly not sure, because it seems to me that contract disputes should be limited to making the other party whole. They are civil matters, not criminal ones, so why should there be additional punishment?

kllrnohj 5y ago

I think it's worth stressing that both sides did something wrong. Apple's contract was also just ruled invalid, and they also aren't being forced to pay any penalties for that. They aren't being forced to compensate Netflix, Spotify, etc... for all the years those companies have been unable to link out to subscription signups on iOS, for example. So consider instead that Epic and Apple were both penalized an identical amount rather than neither side being penalized at all.