Comment by sfifs | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sfifs | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What I think is happening is Epic is trying to force a jury trial on anti-trust and won't hold out for a settlement unlike Amazon and Netflix. At this stage all Epic's actions are geared basically around collecting arguments to bring in front of a jury composed of regular folks.

I'm very confident the old Steve Jobs emails from the eBooks anti-trust case will also be brought into the trial to argue anti-trust is in Apple's DNA.

That's also the reason for that silly 1984 ad parody, so they can bring Apple's original 1984 ad into the trial and make an argument of hypocrisy in front of the Jury - once they were plucky upstarts but now as the most valuable company, they're vampire like etc.

Other vendors are also at this same time taking the opportunity to test Apple store rules limitations - either for Epic to be able to add those additional arguments to their own case OR possibly for them to get standing to join the suit - look at the PR yesterday around Facebook donations to creators hurt by Covid being blocked by Apple store rules.

In this situation, there's very little role the judiciary can play except move the process along. It's going to be a fun battle to watch.

Epic can’t force a jury trial on anti-trust (Sherman act violations) - only the US government has standing to even file that kind of suit. What they can do is sue for damages due to breach of contract or similar bad faith which is a risky and not hugely convincing position.

You’re quite right that they want a jury trial and to put on a show. But legally this is just a business dispute and arguably one that Epic engineered. I wouldn’t be surprised if the case was simply thrown out for that reason.

> Epic can’t force a jury trial on anti-trust (Sherman act violations) - only the US government has standing to even file that kind of suit.

Are you sure? How do you explain these cases?

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/551/877/

> PSKS filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that Leegin violated the antitrust laws by entering into vertical agreements with its retailers to set minimum resale prices. The District Court excluded expert testimony about Leegin’s pricing policy’s procompetitive effects on the ground that Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373, makes it per se illegal under §1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer and its distributor to agree on the minimum price the distributor can charge for the manufacturer’s goods. At trial, PSKS alleged that Leegin and its retailers had agreed to fix prices, but Leegin argued that its pricing policy was lawful under §1. The jury found for PSKS.

Copperweld v. Independence Tube, 467 U.S. 752 (1984): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/752/

> Thereafter, respondent filed an action in Federal District Court against petitioners and Yoder. The jury found, inter alia, that petitioners had conspired to violate § 1 of the Sherman Act, but that Yoder was not part of the conspiracy, and awarded treble damages against petitioners.

More cases are listed under "United States Supreme Court cases" in this Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

Yeah, but the thing is Epic is trying as hard as they possibly can to get into their own monopoly position. They want to BE Steam and the App Store, not to destroy them. They can't do otherwise, as a giant corporate entity.

It makes things interesting but the notion that there's anything heroic or even helpful about what Epic is doing, is real dubious. I think the best argument one can have is that one always wants some Epic around snapping at the heels of whoever is currently the Establishment. That's not the same thing as wanting them to prevail, because then you have to ask 'what are they going to do when they are in that monopolist position that they so obviously want'.

There won't be a jury trial. It will be decided in Apple's favor on summary judgement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com