Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Apple

Apple Accuses Microsoft of Using Epic in Legal Attack (bloomberg.com) 63

Posted by msmash from the blast-from-the-past dept.
Apple injected a new level of intrigue in its bitter court fight with Epic Games, suggesting the Fortnite maker was acting as a stalking horse for Microsoft and withholding evidence. From a report: The iPhone maker made the accusations Wednesday night in a filing asking a judge to make an adverse credibility finding against Lori Wright, an Xbox executive who testified in the trial on behalf of Epic. That would mean the judge could ignore her testimony. Apple asked for such a ruling earlier, but upped its accusations in the new filing. "A reasonable observer might wonder whether Epic is serving as a stalking horse for Microsoft," Apple said. "Microsoft shielded itself from meaningful discovery in this litigation by not appearing as a party or sending a corporate representative to testify." Further reading: Apple and Microsoft's Rivalry Had Cooled. Now It's Back and Getting Testier.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Accuses Microsoft of Using Epic in Legal Attack More

Apple Accuses Microsoft of Using Epic in Legal Attack

Comments Filter:

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:03AM (#61407026)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I think this is more a case of paranoia paranoia everyone's coming to get me on Apple's behalf.

      That's the downside of engaging in anti-competitive practices and illegality, when the law starts to catch up with you you start panicking and lashing out and blaming everyone but yourselves.

      How do we know this? Because we watched Gates in 2000. Microsoft had it's reckoning with the law and was forced to grow up, it looks like Apple is yet to learn.

  • Clearly (Score:3)

    by fulldecent ( 598482 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:15AM (#61407056) Homepage

    Clearly Epic is a stalking horse, shilling this whole legal battle for Microsoft.

    Definitely makes sense because Epic is a small company that has no money, no products.

    • Re:Clearly (Score:4, Informative)

      by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:22AM (#61407096)
      Microsoft has been known to fund things that hurt their competition. For example, we suspected but know for sure that MS provided SCO money indirectly and directly for their legal smearing of Linux back in the day.

      • Microsoft has been known to fund things that hurt their competition. For example, we suspected but know for sure that MS provided SCO money indirectly and directly for their legal smearing of Linux back in the day.

        Yes, and I hear Microsoft CEOs have a history of throwing chairs. I'd be wary around Nadella.

        • Re:Clearly (Score:5, Insightful)

          by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:57AM (#61407242)
          At a superficial level, for MS the cost/risk is low if they hurt Apple's store in this case. However what MS should realize is that the Xbox store is exactly the walled garden Epic wants to dismantle so Epic can build their own walled garden. MS, Sony, and Nintendo are next on Epic's list if MS is not short sighted.

          • There's an argument to be made that mobile devices are general purpose computing devices and thus subject to different rules than a gaming device.

            • There is also an argument that phones have a lot more personal information that consoles, so opening them to third parties is more risky.

              • There is also an argument that phones have a lot more personal information that consoles, so opening them to third parties is more risky.

                So does my laptop, but I'm grateful I do not have to go through Apple or MS for every piece of software I wish to install.

            • Yes but what is that distinction and where do you want to draw the line? You could use a Switch for a lot of computing functions if you wanted to do so. Indeed you can stream videos and use a browser.

            • There's an argument to be made that mobile devices are general purpose computing devices and thus subject to different rules than a gaming device.

              Why does a mobile device have to be "a general computing device" if the manufacturer doesn't design it that way? Mobile devices can be a general computing device, but so can a TV or a video game console or even a thermostat these days.

              I don't get trying to tell engineers that they must design their products a certain way, especially when there are alternatives on the market that do exactly what people want Apple to do. I have never met an iPhone user who complained about their phone being locked down. I hav

              • It doesn't have to be. But that's how they're sold. Especially Apple pushes the idea of "apps". That's a very general concept. If they were pushing "games" they would be a very different company.

                • If the only problem is the way that Apple is marketing these devices, the simple solution would be to change the marketing language. But considering that the term app has largely been popularized by the iPhone and there does not seem to be any connection between openness and apps, I think you are grasping at straws here.

          • I don't think you're assessing that accurately; I think it's the exact opposite.

            Many people are trying to make a subscription-based game streaming service. Stadia didn't quite work, but XBox is going that direction; already you can get 100+ games through XBox Gamepass on an Android phone. Apple's terms however prevent this; they specifically prevent subscription services to offer individual apps, so instead of paying $15/mo. to get access to any of the games on the service, Apple wants you to buy each

            • Apple's terms however prevent this; they specifically prevent subscription services to offer individual apps,

              Back up here. Microsoft and Sony game subscription services have worked out deals with individual game developers to give away their games to their customers free of charge temporarily for certain games. There is no blanket permission nor prohibition on Xbox or PS. In the case of Apple there is no blanket prohibition for this either.

              so instead of paying $15/mo. to get access to any of the games on the service, Apple wants you to buy each game separately and they collect 30% on each

              Apple Arcade is a monthly $5. There is no buying of any games. In the case of Epic, Fornite was free to dowload and play. I am not sure what you are talking about.

              • You're cherry picking comments from what I said, that's why it doesn't make sense. Those changes are recent. The whole purpose of this lawsuit is Apple's terms for companies to have their own stores is egregious to these companies, specifically because they want to reach through and approve every game on every streaming service. Epic and MS don't want that.

                In as little as 2 years ago, they weren't allowing that for anyone on iTunes. It was September 2020 when they changed their policy to allow it, b

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            At a superficial level, for MS the cost/risk is low if they hurt Apple's store in this case. However what MS should realize is that the Xbox store is exactly the walled garden Epic wants to dismantle so Epic can build their own walled garden. MS, Sony, and Nintendo are next on Epic's list if MS is not short sighted.

            That's why they're getting laws made that make extreme contortions to separate the Google Play and Apple App Store from the Xbox/Sony/Nintendo game stores.

            They know the stakes and the goal is to

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I'm not even sure that Apple is competition for Microsoft. The OS war is pretty much stalemated now for about 30 years, Apple makes a fortune in mobile on phones and tablets where Microsoft doesn't meaningfully compete. Microsoft makes it's money on office software and the cloud, which Apple gets the benefit of because Office is available as a mature office suite on MacOS, and because Apple uses Microsoft's cloud platform. They're both players in software development, but for their own respective stacks - i

        • It depends on what MS deems as a threat and what they are willing to do to quash it. After all, browsers and Java largely have not replaced the OS but that did not stop MS from their tactics to undermine both.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        Microsoft has been known to fund things that hurt their competition. For example, we suspected but [don't] know for sure[,] that MS provided SCO money indirectly and directly for their legal smearing of Linux back in the day.

        I hope that this is what you actually intended to write (Slashdot really needs an edit function) otherwise the sentence doesn't make much sense. 8^)

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Clearly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by v1 ( 525388 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:31AM (#61407128) Homepage Journal

      It's not about the size or the risk. The accusation is if Microsoft wants to "inject their opinion" into the case without anyone being able to drag them in and start asking them questions and explore their bias and motivation behind those statements.. As long as they can "keep their name out of the courtroom", they're protected from actually being involved with the litigation, while still benefiting from having an influence on the proceedings.

      Courts don't like Stalking Horses, they're an attempt to get around fair and equal treatment of all participants.

      But at this point it's hard to say for certain, it may just be Epic being Epic, and someone felt that Lori was just in the best position to represen them. But when you have to bring a rep in from another company to testify for you, the question of who they are representing is unavoidably be brought into question. In a big case like this, you run everything by the legal team before making a move, and this would have almost certainly been shot down immediately by Epic's lawyers, because now her testimony may get axed, and that can only hurt Epic.

      I think this either has to come down to someone at Epic screwing up, or Microsoft trying to whisper anonymously in the court's ear. Never forget to consider Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org]

      • There is a process for MS as a third party to state their opinions to the court in a limited manner. Normally they submit an amicus curae brief to the court. However these are at certain points of legal case. For example if it goes to appeal, an amicus curae brief from MS could argue why a higher court should hear the case and/or why one side should win.

        In this case, my understanding is that one of Epic's witnesses is a MS employee. That in itself is not strange. Her submitted testimony however is subject t

    • Epic is a small company that has no money, no products.

      Compared to behemoths like Microsoft and Apple, Epic may as well be making no money. By revenue, their 2020 numbers are 1/60th that of Apple's. By profit, that number shrinks to 1/100th. You may feel comfortable with your six-figure salary, but would you really feel comfortable getting into a legal fight with someone earning an eight-figure salary? Would that be a fight that you seek out?

    • Definitely makes sense because Epic is a small company that has no money, no products.

      List of Unreal Engine games [wikipedia.org]

      Fortnite making money [investopedia.com]: In 2019, Fortnite brought in revenues of $1.8 billion, according to data reported by SuperData Research, a Nielsen Company. As of March 2019, the CEO of Epic Games, Tim Sweeney, reported that there were close to 250 million Fortnite players.

      • I think you missed the obvious sarcasm in their post. Epic and its products are decently well known, especially among a crowd of tech enthusiasts like Slashdot.

  • So? (Score:1)

    by dmay34 ( 6770232 )

    This happens all time time in lawsuits where one party funds another party's lawsuit for one reason or another (typically a cut of the settlement money).

    It can be a good thing because it allows people without the massive resources necessary to wage a legal battle like this to have access to the courts.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by laxguy ( 1179231 )

      yes, im sure *EPIC* needs money to help fight this legal battle that *they* started..

      try again.

  • Surely not! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:22AM (#61407094)

    Are you telling me that Microsoft, a company with a known history of engaging in legal disputes by proxy [wikipedia.org], is engaging in the same behavior yet again? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

  • Whaaaa? Microsoft use a proxy to discredit a whole computing platform? *cough*SCO*cough* *cough*DARLMCBRIDE*cough* NEVER!

    You know, though, proxy fight it may be, fair enough. But TBH my whole reaction to this (airquote)revelation(/airquote) is so TF what. Sure, Microsoft as a company is no better, but Apple is abusing their position, they are charging exorbitant fees, and the little guys don't have the resources to fight back. So while one would wish Microsoft would just step up and fight its own fig

  • If everyone but you is an asshole, then you are the asshole.

  • Let's see the evidence. Otherwise sounds like they've lost on the merits.

  • Comment removed (Score:3)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday May 21, 2021 @10:43AM (#61407180)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      I tried that analogy once... didn't seem to fly very well. Objections raised included pointing out that you can buy many games at a video game store and don't have to use the console company's store and that supposedly the fact that consoles are cheap and the iphone is not is also somehow relevant to having a justified objection to Apple's app store policies.
      • I would ask if anyone could create games for a console. Technically anyone could develop a game but doesn’t getting the game to users requires some blessing from console maker?

    • So Microsoft believe opening up the iOS marketplace is a good thing? Good, let me know when Microsoft opens up the xbox store for 3rd party stores.

      I think they are just Buthurt that Windows 10 S / Windows RT with the locked down Microsoft Store only approach never took off.

  • Every time I update Windows 10, XBox reappears in my task bar. What's up with that?

  • So...

    Apple = Gawker

    Microsoft = Peter Thiel

    Epic = Hulk Hogan

    Checks out!

  • I can get why the court would look down upon stalking horses, but is that strategy illegal? It seems like Apple doesn't have a good counter-argument to the Microsoft exec's statements, so they're just trying to get those statements struck from consideration without ever having to argue against them. From an outsider's perspective, even if Microsoft is a stalking horse, Apple's tactic seems desperate and only makes them appear more guilty in court of public opinion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Friction is a drag.

Close