Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fin_Code | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

>safety

the past few years made me really fucking hate that word.

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

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.

This is indeed about an EU-specific account by Epic Games Sweden.

Do you have a legal citation for this assertion?

> Sounds like they violated a non disparagement clause

Where do you get this? No third-party developer is under such legal obligation.

Where are you seeing a non disparagement clause?

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

I don’t understand how free speech relates to the DMA?

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."

Free speech has nothing to do with any of this

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.

"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.

You are talking about the US's first ammendment. That doesn't exist in the EU.

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.

> 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.

>You are talking about the US's first ammendment.

Then the "freedom of speech" argument is even more irrelevant, in my mind.

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.

I still don't see how that is relevant at all between Apple and Epic...

This is Apple retaliating for Epic criticizing them. You aren't allowed to do that without a more reasonable cause, Apple argues that it isn't illegal retaliation since they have reason to suspect Epic will breach contract, so it isn't entirely clear. But it is clear that free speech is highly relevant to this case and the courts will decide if you are allowed to retaliate for this kind of speech or not.

The point is that EU employment law (whether somebody can be fired upon saying things) isn't relevant to a dispute between two business entities that are not in an employer/employee relationship...

I don't think it applies in this case for the exact reasons stated, but the EU does indeed have a charter on fundamental rights that covers freedom of expression, among other things.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com