Apple Has 'Lost Sight of the Tech Industry's Founding Principles,' Says Epic Games CEO

[PickUrPoison]

<snip>
So how is a contract unenforceable AT ALL until a court says so”

That’s not a true statement. You’re confusing yourself. Instead of taking a piece of a definition you think supports you, it would be better to look at the definition of “enforce” in a legal framework. Enforce: compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation).

Enforcement Of Contracts

When a party does not fulfill the promise made in a valid, enforceable contract at the time such fulfillment, or "performance," is due, the contract has been "breached." At this point legal remedy may be sought.

Contract Law - Enforcement Of Contracts

Most contracts are valid and enforceable. Most contracts are performed satisfactorily, thus no enforcement is necessary. If a party to a valid, enforceable contract doesn’t perform, a non-breaching party can seek to enforce the terms by filing a legal action (with the court) against the breaching party, though sometimes the contract requires otherwise e.g arbitration.

Anyway, I’ve done my best. Perhaps someone else can clear up any questions you may still have.

 

[Ethosik]

That’s not a true statement. You’re confusing yourself. Instead of taking a piece of a definition you think supports you, it would be better to look at the definition of “enforce” in a legal framework. Enforce: compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation).

Contract Law - Enforcement Of Contracts

Most contracts are valid and enforceable. Most contracts are performed satisfactorily, thus no enforcement is necessary. If a party to a valid, enforceable contract doesn’t perform, a non-breaching party can seek to enforce the terms by filing a legal action (with the court) against the breaching party, though sometimes the contract requires otherwise e.g arbitration.

Anyway, I’ve done my best. Perhaps someone else can clear up any questions you may still have.

Its possible. I have seen people on this site state a contract cannot in any capacity be enforced without the courts involvement. So they are probably confusing things too which led to my confusion. The courts aren't involved if I break the 1 year Adobe commitment 2 months in and I do agree to pay the fee that was agreed. The courts weren't involved when employees were terminated due to a breach in the non-compete agreement. Like I said you can go to the court to challenge it, which is what Epic did. But the contract was still "enforced" or upheld or whatever you want to call it that the app was removed without a court saying so.

It was even stated on several of those examples I am familiar with that the contract was "enforced". We had a contract until 2019 for a data center and we needed to leave it in 2017. We had to pay the remainder as that is what was stated in the contract. And it was actually stated it was enforcing the contract that we had to pay what was stated in the contract. Again, no courts were involved. And it was stated it was enforcing the contract. Similarly with the non-competes that I was familiar with it was stated that it was enforced by terminating the employment. So either all of these people are using enforce loosely, or its just another way of stating "we are following what we stated in a contract" with just one word to make conversations easier.

 

[cult hero]

Maximizing profit is the founding principle of capitalism, it's not exclusive. I do believe that many companies, especially in America, are doing a better job of not profiting at all costs and looking at other impacts their actions may have.

Right. My point is that the big boys in virtually every sector are guided by growth and profit. There are smaller players that have different (and arguably better) goals.

I just find the idea that the tech industry has any wholesome founding principles to be utterly ridiculous.

 

[gregohb]

Epic is greed personified.

He is a nut case who apparently hates Silicon Valley while trying to siphon as much money as he can to his own enterprise

 

[Realityck]

Apple responds 9/16/20

Apple accuses Epic of ‘starting a fire and pouring gasoline on it’ in new Fortnite filing - The Verge

Epic Games lawsuit is just a publicity stunt, says Apple - 9to5Mac

Apple says Epic Games dispute is a 'marketing campaign' to boost 'Fortnite' - AppleInsider

Throughout the filing Apple reiterates its main argument: that the company provides a valuable service by maintaining the App Store, and that by circumventing the store’s rules, Epic has broken its contract with Apple and the company is free to boot it from its services. But the opposition brief also adds new details. Apple suggests, for example, that Epic has started this legal battle in part to draw attention to a flagging franchise:

“For reasons having nothing to do with Epic’s claims against Apple, Fortnite’s popularity is on the wane. By July 2020, interest in Fortnite had decreased by nearly 70% as compared to October 2019. This lawsuit (and the front-page headlines it has generated) appears to be part of a marketing campaign designed to reinvigorate interest in Fortnite.”

Elsewhere, Apple notes that iOS is not a big part of Fortnite’s revenue. It quotes disclosures from Epic that only 10 percent of Fortnite consumers play regularly on the iPhone, and claims that Epic has said Apple is the “smallest piece of the pie’” when it comes to revenue. Again, the implication is that Epic is not suffering “irreparable harm” (as the company has claimed in its own filings) but is kicking up a fuss for other, self-interested reasons.

In parallel with this argument, Apple says Epic’s claim that it’s suffered “reputational harm” from being booted off the App Store is also misleading. The iPhone maker says Epic’s “pre-planned media blitz” shows that it is, in fact, welcoming attention created by this case:

“If Epic were truly concerned that it would suffer reputational injury from this dispute, it would not be engaging in these elaborate efforts to publicize it. From all appearances (including the #freefortnite campaign), Epic thinks its conduct here will engender goodwill, boost its reputation, and drive users to Fortnite, not the opposite. That is not harm.”

 

[Realityck]

See

Proposed Order – #81 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

Proposed Order re 73 Opposition/Response to Motion, 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Apple Inc.. (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

Declaration in Opposition – #80 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

DECLARATION of Jay P. Srinivasan in Opposition to 73 Opposition/Response to Motion, 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s) 73, 61 ) (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

Declaration in Opposition – #79 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

DECLARATION of Mike Schmid in Opposition to 73 Opposition/Response to Motion, 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s) 73, 61 ) (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

Declaration in Opposition – #75 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

DECLARATION of Mark G. Graff in Opposition to 73 Opposition/Response to Motion, 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s) 73, 61 ) (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

Declaration in Opposition – #74 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

DECLARATION of Phillip W. Schiller in Opposition to 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 73 Opposition/Response to Motion filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit...

www.courtlistener.com

Opposition/Response to Motion – #73 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byApple Inc.. (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

 

[Ethosik]

See

Declaration in Opposition – #80 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

DECLARATION of Jay P. Srinivasan in Opposition to 73 Opposition/Response to Motion, 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s) 73, 61 ) (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

Declaration in Opposition – #79 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

DECLARATION of Mike Schmid in Opposition to 73 Opposition/Response to Motion, 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s) 73, 61 ) (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

Declaration in Opposition – #75 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

DECLARATION of Mark G. Graff in Opposition to 73 Opposition/Response to Motion, 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byApple Inc.. (Related document(s) 73, 61 ) (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

Declaration in Opposition – #74 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

DECLARATION of Phillip W. Schiller in Opposition to 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, 73 Opposition/Response to Motion filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit...

www.courtlistener.com

Opposition/Response to Motion – #73 in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal., 4:20-cv-05640) – CourtListener.com

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 61 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byApple Inc.. (Boutrous, Theodore) (Filed on 9/15/2020) (Entered: 09/15/2020)

www.courtlistener.com

Those sites aren't loading for me for some reason. Could you briefly explain what those state?

 

[Realityck]

Those sites aren't loading for me for some reason. Could you briefly explain what those state?

see the previous post and look at the embedded graphic in the verge article.


Also can be see here https://www.courtlistener.com/docke...d_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

sort by descending 9/15 docs

 

[ScottHammet]

This whole thread has people effectively implying that if Epic is allowed to have their own store, that's the complete death of Apple's App Store. That's not the case.

If you prefer Apple's Store, don't install Epic's. No-one is forcing you to.

Epic's product is a cross-platform game store, no different to Steam. They're not exploiting anything. By that argument Firefox, and Chrome exploit the platform and customer base that Microsoft built.

Let's not pretend that Apple isn't being handsomely compensated for building a platform, they sell hardware and make a profit on it.

You either allow 3rd party app stores or you don't (if you're Apple). And if you allow one, you'll soon be allowing many--Microsoft will want one, Google will want theirs on Apple devices, and every other game manufacturer will want one. That's why Epic can't have their own store. And if they all get their own stores, what's left on the Apple store? Small-time players who can't build their own. And what quality standard will all those stores meet? Will they all be the same, or will some by iffy? See where it leads?