It's called an unconscionable contract. Epic's argument is that you cannot enforce unfair things even if you signed on it. Of course, the court is going to decide if it's really unfair, neither Epic nor Apple.
I would be interested to see a solid case decided on unconscionability where both parties are multi-billion dollar companies with substantial resources to spend on negotiating contracts.
If "I really want what you're selling, but it's kinda expensive" is the new standard for unconscionability, then we're all in big trouble.
>In a ruling late last month, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely rejected similar arguments Epic made in seeking a restraining order against Apple regarding Fortnite development on iOS. There was no "irreparable harm" to Epic, Rogers wrote, because "the current predicament appears of [Epic's] own making."
> "Your client created this situation," Rogers told lawyers for Epic in an August hearing. "Your client does not come to this action with clean hands... in my view, you cannot have irreparable harm when you create the harm yourself."
> "The court recommended that Epic comply with the App Store guidelines while their case moves forward, guidelines they’ve followed for the past decade until they created this situation," Apple said in a statement earlier this month." Epic has refused. Instead they "repeatedly submit Fortnite updates designed to violate the guidelines of the App Store."
EDIT: @gpm The status quo you refer to is Epic abiding by the agreement they argue is unenforceable. I have to be mindful about my reply quantity, HN throttles me otherwise, hence the edit.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/08/judge-issues-restrain...
The idea is just that the judge is generally going to maintain the status quo during the TRO phase (this policy exists because there has been such little time for legal argument at the point that a TRO is requested).
I don't see that any of these quotes are at all responsive to the person you are responding to.
> EDIT: @gpm The status quo is Epic abiding by the agreement they argue unenforcable.
Heh, just so you know you can reply to new comments by clicking on the timestamp and then clicking reply.
Anyways, I think I must be missing your point? The person you replied to appeared to be arguing about what the final ruling should be not about whether or not a TRO should be granted (which is where the status quo arguments come in).
The only difference is people want to change the rules because they feel Apple (and Google) have won the game forever and App Stores should now be regulated like utilities.
Which makes me wonder : is there any way to distribute your own game to playstation users, without having to ask or pay anything to sony ?
Same for any console, though some are very restrictive and have very specific pricing guidelines (eg. Nintendo).
A contract may not be enforceable, but only if it contradicts the law. In this instance, I don't see how.
I suggest you read up on this dispute then, because the whole cause of this dispute is that Epic believes the contract violates anti-trust law.
I suppose if you don't like it you can go buy an Android phone and just give away all your data in addition to the 30%.
Also worth considering: How much of Apple's intellectual property here could exist without them harvesting decades of free/open software development history unpaid? And now they're complaining that someone used their SDK after paying the license fees?