themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 hours agoValve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewherewww.eurogamer.netexternal-linkmessage-square26fedilinkarrow-up160
arrow-up160external-linkValve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewherewww.eurogamer.netthemachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 hours agomessage-square26fedilink
minus-squaretruthfultemporarily@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·2 hours agoNo love for those companies but just because you agreed to a contract doesn’t mean the clauses of the contract are legal or enforceable.
minus-squareit_depends_man@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·edit-22 hours agoTrue, but this deal is that companies stick to the terms and in turn they get access to steams shop, implicitly the community. They don’t have some unalienable right to access another company’s customers. You don’t have a “right” to go into a BurgerKing and advertise and sell your burgers there.
minus-squaretruthfultemporarily@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·34 minutes ago… and in a country with rule of law whether a contractual clause is legal would be decided by a court, no?
minus-squareyetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·2 hours agoYeah, isn’t that the point of the lawsuit? That this exact clause is challenged in court?
No love for those companies but just because you agreed to a contract doesn’t mean the clauses of the contract are legal or enforceable.
True, but this deal is that companies stick to the terms and in turn they get access to steams shop, implicitly the community.
They don’t have some unalienable right to access another company’s customers.
You don’t have a “right” to go into a BurgerKing and advertise and sell your burgers there.
… and in a country with rule of law whether a contractual clause is legal would be decided by a court, no?
Yeah, isn’t that the point of the lawsuit? That this exact clause is challenged in court?