undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthreeseed5y ago0 comments

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...

0 comments

mehrdadn5y ago

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.

AnthonyMouse5y ago

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.

threeseedOP5y ago

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.

AnthonyMouse5y ago

> 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?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

mehrdadn5y ago

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

AnthonyMouse5y ago

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.

threeseedOP5y ago

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.

AnthonyMouse5y ago

> 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?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse