Jonjonz wrote on Feb 23, 2021, 06:44:
The justice systems in most countries now are still totally oblivious to how new technology and online markets work. Tim is indeed looking for a toe-hold when at least one of these cases goes his way when a court is more impressed with his lawyers than the underlying law and principles.

In the real world Apples "if we sell it for you, and your thing involves any online financial transaction, a) it has to go through us, and b) you owe us a cut of that in perpetuity" would never fly. Imagine buying a coffee maker from Best Buy and the fine print says from now to eternity every coffee filter you buy for it has to be bought from Best Buy or if you want to buy a coffee filter anywhere else via mail order, you have to order it through Best Buy and you have to pay Best Buy a percentage over whatever the other source is charging.

Actually, it is more like customers insisting on buying everything they want/need from Best Buy. That's what you do when you buy an iPhone. You agree you will buy everything from the Apple app store. So, if you want to sell apples to iPhone users, you have to sell them to Best Buy. And the perpetual nature in the case of software is legitimate since the big bucks are in the micro-transactions. If it wasn't for that, Epic could sell the mobile versions of the games for $0.01 and bypass the fees, leaving Apple to provide distribution without being paid.

Look like I have said before, there is no good guy in this fight. While Epic's argument might contain some limited merit, overall it is a bunch of baloney, and they know it.

The justice systems in most countries now are still totally oblivious to how new technology and online markets work. Tim is indeed looking for a toe-hold when at least one of these cases goes his way when a court is more impressed with his lawyers than the underlying law and principles.

In the real world Apples "if we sell it for you, and your thing involves any online financial transaction, a) it has to go through us, and b) you owe us a cut of that in perpetuity" would never fly. Imagine buying a coffee maker from Best Buy and the fine print says from now to eternity every coffee filter you buy for it has to be bought from Best Buy or if you want to buy a coffee filter anywhere else via mail order, you have to order it through Best Buy and you have to pay Best Buy a percentage over whatever the other source is charging.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 22, 2021, 19:29:
I don't know what Epic is trying to accomplish, but the U.S. and U.K. justice systems are clear on contract disputes where one company is in breach of another's. The courts generally do not side with the company in wanton violation of their contract.

It makes even less sense when you consider that the UK court decision is only valid in the UK, it has zero reach beyond that. Epic would have to bring this in front of a EU or WTO court if wanted real global reach with a decision... and how that decision would go is another question.

If I thought for a second that Epic getting their way would benefit consumers, I might give them some support. Even though they only take a 12% cut, the games don't sell for any cheaper. We also know that a 12% cut isn't sustainable nor are all the freebees they give out. Nothing about Epic's business model is sustainable if this bad faith suit doesn't end in their favor.

Acleacius wrote on Feb 22, 2021, 20:08:

Kxmode wrote on Feb 22, 2021, 19:29:
I don't know what Epic is trying to accomplish, but the U.S. and U.K. justice systems are clear on contract disputes where one company is in breach of another's. The courts generally do not side with the company in wanton violation of their contract.

It looks like, all publicity stunts to keep epic's name in the news. His pissing in the wind, and standing down wind.

It was absurd stupidity when tiny tim started all this and it still is now. It's got frivolous failure written all over it
and iirc the US has already said no once, which is why they went to the UK.

I sense Epic is trying to flood the courts in the United States, U.K., and Australia to increase the chance Tim gets the outcome he wants. He's hoping that what happens in one region, other areas will follow suit—or the outcome forces Apple and Alphabet to adjust their business model to avoid having fragmented business models. As for the first reason, what the U.S. or Australia decide does not influence other regions' legal outcomes or visa verses. For the second reason, companies as big as Apple and Alphabet have no problem creating "pocket" business models that have no bearing on other regional markets. They do it now in Australia versus the United States. By bringing so many regional cases, Epic's strategy is also diluting their case.

Kxmode wrote on Feb 22, 2021, 19:29:
I don't know what Epic is trying to accomplish, but the U.S. and U.K. justice systems are clear on contract disputes where one company is in breach of another's. The courts generally do not side with the company in wanton violation of their contract.

It looks like, all publicity stunts to keep epic's name in the news. His pissing in the wind, and standing down wind.

It was absurd stupidity when tiny tim started all this and it still is now. It's got frivolous failure written all over it
and iirc the US has already said no once, which is why they went to the UK.

I don't know what Epic is trying to accomplish, but the U.S. and U.K. justice systems are clear on contract disputes where one company is in breach of another's. The courts generally do not side with the company in wanton violation of their contract.