6 ms·

Sounds like they violated a non disparagement clause and signaled they will not adhere to policy. All they had to do is keep quiet and launch to minimize their

Sounds like they violated a non disparagement clause and signaled they will not adhere to policy. All they had to do is keep quiet and launch to minimize their liability. Guess they will need to fight in the EU to see if they can claw back.

jefftk 3y ago
Where are you seeing a non disparagement clause?
andersa 3y ago
A non-disparagement clause is not valid under the DMA.
- r00fus 3y ago
  Perhaps Apple needs to separate geographies in its account setup. Let Epic have the EU account, but disable them everywhere else. Because in the US/Asia, Epic has no DMA protections.
  - andersa 3y ago
    This is indeed about an EU-specific account by Epic Games Sweden.
- otterley 3y ago
  Do you have a legal citation for this assertion?
BearOso 3y ago
There's no chance the DMA includes a non disparagement clause. That's totally against free speech.
- Kluggy 3y ago
  I don’t understand how free speech relates to the DMA?
  - BearOso 3y ago
    Not "free speech" as part of the US Bill of Rights, free speech as in "the EU ethics would never have such language in the DMA to forbid it or allow such a violation to stand."
- VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
  Free speech has nothing to do with any of this
  - Jensson 3y ago
    Apple terminated Epics account for Epic criticizing Apple, not for anything Epic did with the account. That is a free speech violation, retaliating for unrelated speech is against the ideal of free speech. USAs free speech laws mostly just bans governments from retaliating, but a more encompassing law would also ban corporations from doing so as well, there is no reason you should fear speaking up just because the corporation might retaliate and ruin your life. USA already has such anti retaliation laws for companies in some cases so there is nothing unreasonable about it.
- SteveNuts 3y ago
  "Free speech" is all about the government not persecuting an individual for something they say. It offers no protection in a case like this between two non-government entities.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    You are talking about the US's first ammendment. That doesn't exist in the EU.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      True, but they raise a valid point in that even in the US, the government has no standing to intervene with private individuals limiting each others' speech contractually. NDAs are very much enforceable in the US.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        > even in the US, the government has no standing to intervene with private individuals limiting each others' speech In Europe the government does that though, so "even in the US" is a nonsense argument here, the US is horrible at protecting individuals rights against oppressive companies. I am not certain about such laws that could apply to this case, but there are already plenty of laws around what you are allowed to retaliate for etc. Just like USA makes it illegal to fire based on race or to fire union organizers, it is the same principle.
    - SteveNuts 3y ago
      >You are talking about the US's first ammendment. Then the "freedom of speech" argument is even more irrelevant, in my mind.
      - Jensson 3y ago
        Companies can't fire you for unrelated speech in most of Europe, their laws doesn't protect you as much from governments but they protect speech significantly more against private corporations. So just because US freedom of speech is limited to government doesn't mean that applies everywhere.
lapcat 3y ago
> Sounds like they violated a non disparagement clause Where do you get this? No third-party developer is under such legal obligation.
apozem 3y ago
Apple's lawyer states no such thing, only that they have the right to revoke anyone's developer account for any time and for any reason. They believe Epic will violate their rules in the future and affect iOS users' privacy and safety, so they banned them. I know this is the internet, and no one actually reads the linked articles, but I really wish people would do so before weighing in. You did not need to make up a non-disparagement clause.
- 123yawaworht456 3y ago
  >safety the past few years made me really fucking hate that word.

jefftk 3y ago

Where are you seeing a non disparagement clause?

andersa 3y ago

A non-disparagement clause is not valid under the DMA.

r00fus 3y ago
Perhaps Apple needs to separate geographies in its account setup. Let Epic have the EU account, but disable them everywhere else. Because in the US/Asia, Epic has no DMA protections.
- andersa 3y ago
  This is indeed about an EU-specific account by Epic Games Sweden.
otterley 3y ago
Do you have a legal citation for this assertion?

BearOso 3y ago

There's no chance the DMA includes a non disparagement clause. That's totally against free speech.

Kluggy 3y ago
I don’t understand how free speech relates to the DMA?
- BearOso 3y ago
  Not "free speech" as part of the US Bill of Rights, free speech as in "the EU ethics would never have such language in the DMA to forbid it or allow such a violation to stand."
VWWHFSfQ 3y ago
Free speech has nothing to do with any of this
- Jensson 3y ago
  Apple terminated Epics account for Epic criticizing Apple, not for anything Epic did with the account. That is a free speech violation, retaliating for unrelated speech is against the ideal of free speech. USAs free speech laws mostly just bans governments from retaliating, but a more encompassing law would also ban corporations from doing so as well, there is no reason you should fear speaking up just because the corporation might retaliate and ruin your life. USA already has such anti retaliation laws for companies in some cases so there is nothing unreasonable about it.
SteveNuts 3y ago
"Free speech" is all about the government not persecuting an individual for something they say. It offers no protection in a case like this between two non-government entities.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  You are talking about the US's first ammendment. That doesn't exist in the EU.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    True, but they raise a valid point in that even in the US, the government has no standing to intervene with private individuals limiting each others' speech contractually. NDAs are very much enforceable in the US.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > even in the US, the government has no standing to intervene with private individuals limiting each others' speech In Europe the government does that though, so "even in the US" is a nonsense argument here, the US is horrible at protecting individuals rights against oppressive companies. I am not certain about such laws that could apply to this case, but there are already plenty of laws around what you are allowed to retaliate for etc. Just like USA makes it illegal to fire based on race or to fire union organizers, it is the same principle.
  - SteveNuts 3y ago
    >You are talking about the US's first ammendment. Then the "freedom of speech" argument is even more irrelevant, in my mind.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      Companies can't fire you for unrelated speech in most of Europe, their laws doesn't protect you as much from governments but they protect speech significantly more against private corporations. So just because US freedom of speech is limited to government doesn't mean that applies everywhere.

lapcat 3y ago

> Sounds like they violated a non disparagement clause Where do you get this? No third-party developer is under such legal obligation.

apozem 3y ago

Apple's lawyer states no such thing, only that they have the right to revoke anyone's developer account for any time and for any reason. They believe Epic will violate their rules in the future and affect iOS users' privacy and safety, so they banned them. I know this is the internet, and no one actually reads the linked articles, but I really wish people would do so before weighing in. You did not need to make up a non-disparagement clause.

123yawaworht456 3y ago
>safety the past few years made me really fucking hate that word.