nodamage

39 ms·

421.
by nodamage 6y ago
You've confused two different things here. Epic takes a 12% cut from third-party games sold via the Epic Game Store. This is unrelated to their profits from Fortnite.
422.
by nodamage 6y ago
I'm not sure you actually understand the issue, it's not simply a question of terminology. Whether consumer harm exists or not is a question to be determined during the trial, not before.
423.
by nodamage 6y ago
By being "forced" to use Apple's payment system instead of their own, Epic has already "suffered harm" due to the $300 million in fees they otherwise would not have paid. There was no need to get kicked off the App
424.
by nodamage 6y ago
As I previously said, those cases are about whether reverse engineering constitutes copyright infringement, which the courts have ruled it does not. But it doesn't mean those platforms are "open", otherwise under that definit
425.
by nodamage 6y ago
Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected. They can already show harm and can sue to get those fees back. They did not need to do anything else.
426.
by nodamage 6y ago
Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected.
427.
by nodamage 6y ago
Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected. They already "suffered harm", they did not need to do anything further in order to sue.
428.
by nodamage 6y ago
Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has collected.
429.
by nodamage 6y ago
To clarify, in order for Epic to bring a claim it needs to show that it has personally been harmed. In order for Epic to win the claim it will need to prove that competition has been harmed. Standing needs to be established separately f
430.
by nodamage 6y ago
While I certainly agree that Epic needs a strong case in order to win, it's not clear that their actions with regards to Fortnite actually help their legal case so much as their public relations . In any case it seems like the goalp
431.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Console ecosystems are already open-by-law, based on past cases from the 80s and 90s. I'm curious what cases you think actually established this precedent? Keep in mind that a court saying "reverse engineering is not copyrig
432.
by nodamage 6y ago
The EU appears to have specific criteria for when a single company's product can be considered its own market. [1] Dominance on the aftermarket is excluded to the extent that a customer: 1) can make an informed choice including lifecy
433.
by nodamage 6y ago
Not to establish standing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24427468
434.
by nodamage 6y ago
1. Not necessarily. Per se violations do not require proof of consumer harm, for example. Epic's tying claim against Apple is an alleged per se violation. 2. It was already established in Apple v. Pepper that developers had stand
435.
by nodamage 6y ago
> AFAIK Epic did their move by pushing "legal" iOS code, then doing an over-the-air update of adding non-Apple payment system. No, the code was hidden in the app itself, just disabled via server-side flag. After the app was app
436.
by nodamage 6y ago
I am amazed that this obviously false claim has been repeated a dozen times in this thread. Epic already has suffered economic harm based on the $300 million in Fortnite IAP fees Apple has previously collected. They already had standing to
437.
by nodamage 6y ago
They already had standing based on the $300 million in IAP fees Apple has collected from Fortnite. They could have simply sued and said "we want our $300 million back". They didn't need to do anything else.
438.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Part of Epic's legal team's arguments was that there is binding legal precedent that "self inflicted harm" was not disqualifying of any of their claims in an anti-trust suit due to the standing hurdle I think you&#x
439.
by nodamage 6y ago
> And the EU will levy the world's biggest fine at Apple, I predict north of $5 billion if not $10 billion for abusing their status with this being a notable case. Apple only has ~25% market share in the EU. Their "status"
440.
by nodamage 6y ago
I'm not sure why people keep repeating this. Epic already had standing to sue from the $300 million that Apple has collected in Fortnite IAP fees.
441.
by nodamage 6y ago
This is almost entirely wrong. The Sherman Act has 2 sections. Section 1 prohibits actions like price fixing and bid rigging regardless of market power. It's section 2 that prohibits monopolization and requires monopoly power. The majo
442.
by nodamage 6y ago
Ironically the person this quote is attributed to spent the majority of his life owning other human beings. I'm not sure we should put much weight into his opinion of "essential liberty".
443.
by nodamage 6y ago
Epic alleges Apple has violated the Sherman Act. They have not proven this in a court of law, nor is it clear that they actually will succeed in doing so.
444.
by nodamage 6y ago
Note: I am not a lawyer but I have been doing a deep dive into the legal background behind this case. Ultimately I believe the outcome of this case will depend on two questions: 1. Can Epic establish that iOS app distribution is in fact a v
445.
by nodamage 6y ago
Just to clarify, with the Jetbrains model you don't get to keep the current version, your fallback license is for the version that was available 12 months prior to the date you decided to stop paying. (Presumably this is so you can&#
446.
by nodamage 6y ago
Okay, but how is any of that is relevant to the original point that "you have to make the choice of app store together with the choice of the entire platform including the hardware and operating system". It seems to me, when you m
447.
by nodamage 6y ago
> Yes... But it is very much not true that a court requires a literal monopoly in order for them to find behaviors to be anti-competitive. All that needs to happen is for a company to have significant market power. If by literal monopoly
448.
by nodamage 6y ago
Note that your link says that the courts typically do not find monopoly power if the firm has less than 50% share of the market. iPhones currently have around 45% market share in the US: https://www.statista.com/statistics&#
449.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The main point is not that Apple is a monopoly on the smartphone market, the issue is the monopoly Apple has on distributing apps for the iOS platform. The question of whether the iOS app distribution market is, in fact, separate and v
450.
by nodamage 6y ago
> The situations are pretty similar, because your argument about 90% is not what the courts care about. The courts care about market power, not necessarily a literal monopoly. To be clear, whether the court cares about monopoly power or

More ›