[mehrdadn]

My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court (to demonstrate damages or whatever). That's not quite the same as (covertly) breaching your contract hoping you get away without getting caught, which is the impression you're giving.

Assuming that's accurate, then I'm not sure what else one would expect them to do—not do something that gets them banned, then have their case thrown out immediately because they can't (say) demonstrate damages? Did they have any other realistic options besides just shutting up and putting up with the situation (which they have been doing this whole time)?

[Despegar]

>My layman understanding was Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court

This is obviously false because there are other antitrust cases against Apple pending.

[zamalek]

That's Government v. Apple, not Epic v. Apple. Furthermore, irrespective of what the outcome of Epic v. Apple is, more people are paying attention to Apple's behavior and the rouse may eventually bear fruit (in the form of more Government v. Apple).

[ascagnel_]

Blix v. Apple[0] pre-dated the Epic v. Apple suit by about 8 months.

[0]: https://download.bluemail.me/docs/01869-Blix-Amended-Complai... (PDF)

[anotherman554]

It's not obviously false because unless you've read the case law on the legal concept of "standing" you have no insight into the issue at all.

[Despegar]

Fortunately I have and they do have standing.

[threeseed]

If you're going to make a claim about a pending case and you're not a lawyer then you really need to provide a source. Because based on what the judge has said to date [1] your understanding does not seem accurate.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/29/21493096/epic-apple-antit...

[mehrdadn]

Read the CNN report your article links to. It says the same thing I said:

> Epic's attorneys acknowledged that the company breached its agreement with Apple but claimed Epic was simply refusing to comply with an anti-competitive contract, and that forcing a legal battle was part of Epic's plan.

You might disagree about whether it should've been part of their plan (evidently their lawyers disagree, and I have yet to see either your article or yourself mention an alternative approach), but either way, everything I've seen is consistent with their intention having been to force this into court than to covertly breach the contract.

[AnthonyMouse]

You're arguing against a layman's explanation by linking to a layman's explanation.

The first argument is about standing. The second argument is about, apparently, an injunction to remain available during the course of the litigation. They're two separate issues.

[threeseed]

No I am linking to an article with quotes from the judge presiding over the case and a factual summary. The author is not giving their understanding of the legalities and merits of the case.

OP's statement, "Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court" is worthless if they are not a lawyer and don't have some reputable source.

[AnthonyMouse]

> No I am linking to an article with quotes from the judge presiding over the case and a factual summary. The author is not giving their understanding of the legalities and merits of the case.

The article is written by a layman and includes a contextless quote from the judge which doesn't appear relevant to the point you're trying to make.

> OP's statement, "Epic had to do this to be able to legally challenge Apple in court" is worthless if they are not a lawyer and don't have some reputable source.

Accusing someone of not being a lawyer is not a counterargument, it's an ad hominem attack. If they're right, they're right. If they're wrong, where's your evidence?