5 ms·

Given Epic's premeditated nature of the initial contract break, and subsequent media campaign, I wouldn't rule out this is just the second wave of Epic's persua

Given Epic's premeditated nature of the initial contract break, and subsequent media campaign, I wouldn't rule out this is just the second wave of Epic's persuasion war. Apple just seems to be an odd foe for the U.S. to fight in this area. I'll get the tin foil.

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 ago
  Fun 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 ago
  Indeed, 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 ago
    That 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 ago
  Right. Typically you have to show that you were harmed.
jjcon 5y ago
> Apple just seems to be an odd foe for the U.S. to fight in this area. Apple? The largest company in the world? A company 7x larger than walmart? Why would it at all be odd to accuse them on antitrust grounds.
- boardwaalk 5y ago
  Apple is power (money) and influence for the US, and there is increasing geopolitical tension. It's pretty easy to see this as shooting yourself in the foot.
  - r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
    The thing about transnational corporations like Apple is that due to their size they are, to some extent, independent of the diktats of any one state like the US. While the usual power relationship between the state and a corporation is, roughly speaking, obey the law or we will dissolve you and lock up your executives, that relationship is less clear when it comes to a company such as Apple. This is due to two reasons. First its' transnational nature means it is not wholly reliant on remaining on the good side of a single state for its continued existence and income, and secondly the state itself comes to rely on the transnational corporation to provide employment, resources and expertise by way of its products, and tax revenues because of its' outsize nature. The result of this is that states find it difficult to wield corporations as tools in geopolitical conflicts and, at the margins, find themselves being wielded. There is thus a tension between the state's need to protect transnationals and promote their interests, and its' need to protect itself (and secondarily its citizen consumers) from their depredations. Actions such as this can be seen within this context. It is partly about protecting citizen consumers from the predatory behaviour of transnational corporations, but it is also about protecting the state and its ability to act independent of the interests of corporations. Finally the state itself is a consumer and has interests as such.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      I keep losing track of if they're supposed to be so powerful they answer to no one, or so cowed that they're going to get me extradited to China and sent to jail for life for looking at Winnie the Pooh cartoons.

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 ago
Fun 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 ago
Indeed, 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 ago
  That 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 ago
Right. Typically you have to show that you were harmed.

jjcon 5y ago

> Apple just seems to be an odd foe for the U.S. to fight in this area. Apple? The largest company in the world? A company 7x larger than walmart? Why would it at all be odd to accuse them on antitrust grounds.

boardwaalk 5y ago
Apple is power (money) and influence for the US, and there is increasing geopolitical tension. It's pretty easy to see this as shooting yourself in the foot.
- r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
  The thing about transnational corporations like Apple is that due to their size they are, to some extent, independent of the diktats of any one state like the US. While the usual power relationship between the state and a corporation is, roughly speaking, obey the law or we will dissolve you and lock up your executives, that relationship is less clear when it comes to a company such as Apple. This is due to two reasons. First its' transnational nature means it is not wholly reliant on remaining on the good side of a single state for its continued existence and income, and secondly the state itself comes to rely on the transnational corporation to provide employment, resources and expertise by way of its products, and tax revenues because of its' outsize nature. The result of this is that states find it difficult to wield corporations as tools in geopolitical conflicts and, at the margins, find themselves being wielded. There is thus a tension between the state's need to protect transnationals and promote their interests, and its' need to protect itself (and secondarily its citizen consumers) from their depredations. Actions such as this can be seen within this context. It is partly about protecting citizen consumers from the predatory behaviour of transnational corporations, but it is also about protecting the state and its ability to act independent of the interests of corporations. Finally the state itself is a consumer and has interests as such.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    I keep losing track of if they're supposed to be so powerful they answer to no one, or so cowed that they're going to get me extradited to China and sent to jail for life for looking at Winnie the Pooh cartoons.