5 ms·

The tech press could do a better job here IMO, I think this article is ok: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2021/05/23/the-epic-v-apple-judge-does-not-see

• simondotau 5y ago
  > I think this article is ok: That article is utterly rudimentary reportage. There is no legal analysis, or really any depth of analysis at all. You really should seek out specialist analysts like Richard Hoeg who have in-depth, intersectional understanding of both competition law and technology platforms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5WS5D6GydY If you don't like the idea of watching long-form commentary, his speaking style is clear enough that I find his voice eminently clear at 2X speed. Use the YouTube shortcut keys shift–comma (<) and shift–period (>) to quickly change the playback speed. > Rules can be better defined and updated In the excruciatingly pedantic context of law, "better defined rules" and "updating the rules" are synonymous with changing the rules. You can spin it however you like, but as the law stands right now, what Apple is doing is legal. Out of curiosity, do think that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should also be forced to dissolve control over their platforms as well? > They just can't disallow alternate app stores like they have been doing. Until such time as a law is established to disallow walled gardens of technology platforms, they absolutely can. You are welcome to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to disallow alternate app stores, but arguing for the status quo to be changed is an entirely different argument. It's also worth noting that the law is absolutely on Apple's side when it comes to licensing Apple's intellectual property, which all iOS developers must do in order to use the software development tools they supply. So even if Apple is forced to allow side-loading of alternative stores, there is absolutely no question that Apple would be allowed to require a percentage cut of revenues from apps developed using their tools—just as Epic is entitled to ask of developers who use Unreal Engine. > a link to the Epic brief they filed That is not a brief filed in the Epic vs Apple trial. It doesn't have anything to do with Apple. As far as I can tell, no such amicus brief exists. Yet you seem convinced it does exist and that you've read it.
  • 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.