3 ms·
> Given Epic's premeditated nature of the initial contract break That's how a lawsuit would have to work, the courts don't typically like ruling on hypothetica
by monocasa 5y ago
> Given Epic's premeditated nature of the initial contract break
That's how a lawsuit would have to work, the courts don't typically like ruling on hypotheticals between two private entities.
- ashtonkem 5y agoFun related fact. Cases where a law is violated specifically to seek a precedent on appeal is sometimes called a test case. Tons of famous civil rights litigation were test cases where one or both of the parties purposefully sought an unfavorable verdict in order to appeal. Plessy v. Ferguson, the Scopes Trial, and Brown vs. Board of Education were all test cases. IIRC the legal community used to kind of dislike these, and I think there might have been a penalty for doing it. But obviously that’s no more
- AaronFriel 5y agoIndeed, there has to be per the "case or controversy" clause of the constitution. For a plaintiff to meet standing, there must be an "injury in fact". Epic must violate Apple's terms of use in order to be injured by the application of them, in order for Epic to have standing to allege those terms are an abuse of monopoly power.
- nodamage 5y agoThat is incorrect, the 30% that Epic was paying Apple was sufficient to establish standing, they did not need to break the contract on top of that. The judge said so herself during the trial.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoRight. Typically you have to show that you were harmed.