Microsoft has been trying to get xcloud on other consoles, court documents confirm

[liams]

Court documents from the Epic vs Apple case are the gift that keeps on giving, here is an email between Phil Spencer and Tim Sweeney. I wonder what "continuing to expand our console platform capabilities" means?

Also microsoft was aware of what Epic planned to do with fortnite on ios before it happened.

I dont know if I am reading too much into it, but Phil and Tim seem much friendlier than I assumed they would be to one another, especially after all the ruckus that Tim Sweeney made about the windows store and UWP when that was rolling out

Heres Tom Warrens Article
Epic pushed Xbox chief to open free multiplayer just ahead of Apple Fortnite battle - The Verge

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Whilst this stuff is super interesting, I don't understand what it has to the do with Epic's case on Apple and Googling charging a 30% cut on all transactions. It feels like Epic are throwing partners under the bus disclosing this just to bring interest to their case as documents like this are disclosed.

Since I'm not one of Epic's partner, let the show continue! I wonder what partners like Microsoft feel about having these non-relevant documents disclosed.

 

[Zaphod]

It feels like Epic are throwing partners under the bus disclosing this just to bring interest to their case as documents like this are disclosed.

Epic are not actively disclosing this.

They may or may not not mind too much, but these documents are part of the giant heap of stuff that has been subpoenaed by Apple and thus is part of the court record.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Epic are not actively disclosing this. They may or may not not mind too much, but these documents are part of the giant heap of stuff that has been subpoenaed by Apple and thus is part of the court record.

Firstly, Apple asked the court to subpoena documents, which under normal court processes are then reviewed individually assessed as being relevant to the case and considered for disclosure. They don't just dump everything provided into the public domain* and make it freely available.

Secondly, how do you know these documents were part of Apple's requested court subpoena and not disclosed by Epic? I'm not saying you're not right, I'm just asking how you identify which documents were as a result of the mistaken court procedure or intentionally disclosed by Epic?

What I only just read was that many of these documents were unintentionally disclosed. We know that Apple asked the court to subpoena Steam because all of Apple's requests were made public. I don't recall any requests for information from Sony or Microsoft which would suggest that these were documents flagged by Epic as disclosable - although perhaps not intended to be made public.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1389599200564875264

If nothing else, this definitely change the way big companies like Microsoft and Sony deal with third parties like Epic.

 

[Zaphod]

Secondly, how do you know these documents were part of Apple's requested court subpoena and not disclosed by Epic? I'm not saying you're not right, I'm just asking how you identify which documents were as a result of the mistaken court procedure or intentionally disclosed by Epic?

The documents are tagged as being part of either the plaintiff or the defendants exhibits. Besides, going on some leaking spree of things that are relevant but not part of disclosure during a trial would probably not sit well with the court.

The point wasn't who's right or wrong, merely that other companies probably won't hold a grudge towards Epic for these things (or Apple) unless something actually negligent or illegal should come up.

Other than that, I'd be very surprised if both parties didn't have people nudging press in the direction of documents they'd want highlighted.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The documents are tagged as being part of either the plaintiff or the defendants exhibits. Besides, going on some leaking spree of things that are relevant but not part of disclosure during a trial would probably not sit well with the court.

Good point, well made. It does indeed say on the exhibit label!

The point wasn't who's right or wrong, merely that other companies probably won't hold a grudge towards Epic for these things (or Apple) unless something actually negligent or illegal should come up. Other than that, I'd be very surprised if both parties didn't have people nudging press in the direction of documents they'd want highlighted.

It'll certainly change the behaviour about how's things are recorded internally. It's quite surprising how casual Phil Spencer communicates. Most people don't really consider how they express themselves in email - right up until he point that it gets disclosed in court or via an FoI.

 

[Zaphod]

It'll certainly change the behaviour about how's things are recorded internally. It's quite surprising how casual Phil Spencer communicates. Most people don't really consider how they express themselves in email - right up until he point that it gets disclosed in court or via an FoI.

Well...

Both the parties themselves as well as affected third parties can petition the court that documents be sealed, either in full or redacted. Apparently there was a lot of time spent on such requests the first couple of days. (Including Epics lawyer naming Paradox in open court during a discussion of whether they could get the name of a third party redacted, even if the third party had not submitted such a request on behalf of themselves in time.)

I think it¨s a safe assumption that Epic (and Apple) have been informing business partners and affected third parties about what may enter the court record so that they could take appropriate action. At least, that's how its is supposed to work. But then the court mistakenly went ahead and dumped a whole lot of it in the open anyway.