4 ms·

If (a) there is no definite speed limit, just an imprecise policy statement (like "don't drive too fast") and (b) a person drives by the same cops for years at

If (a) there is no definite speed limit, just an imprecise policy statement (like "don't drive too fast") and (b) a person drives by the same cops for years at the same speed and gets clocked and doesn't get ticketed, and then (c) is one day pulled over and told that they're driving imprudently, then they indeed have a basis for complaint. That is exactly how this works. The interplay between vague policies and regular practice is how people gain clarity in the absence of a bright line rule -- playing ball.

joseph_grobbles 6y ago
An app named "amphetamine" (a controlled substance in most countries), using a pill as its icon, with narrative like the "most awesome keep-awake". Yeah, there isn't a lot of ambiguity here. This was absolutely getting away with it. A lot of noise and bluster in here, but I'd peg the probability that Apple stays firm at 100%.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  The issue with your analysis is the long standing approval and acquiescence on Apple's part. The app itself, and each update, only ever went out with Apple's explicit acknowledgment, review and consent.
anigbrowl 6y ago
But there already is a bright line rule here, it has just not been diligently enforced up to now. The basic argument is that the Amphetamine app has been able to slide for so long that the ToS provision it violates should be treated as a dead letter, or as if some statute of limitations had expired; the Amphetamine brand has existed so long (and under such favorable conditions) in the app store that the developer now has an economic interest in the brand, gained through a reliance on Apple's non-enforcement of this ToS provision. The developer could try suing Apple on the basis of laches, the legal doctrine whereby if one party has 'slept on their rights' so long that the situation changed, they can't suddenly decide to enforce a term later. But there's no hard and fast rule about this, and since it would tie Apple's hands they'd probably fight it tooth and nail, throwing enough legal resources at it to wear out any opposition.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  The only bright line rule in the provision is that an app should not facilitate the trade in controlled substances, and it doesn't.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    FTA: Apple has accused Amphetamine of violating the following guideline: 1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed." Looks like you forgot some other stuff.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      No, it looks like you don't understand what "bright line rule" means.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        I understand it just fine. You are just trying to gin up a controversy where none exists.

joseph_grobbles 6y ago

An app named "amphetamine" (a controlled substance in most countries), using a pill as its icon, with narrative like the "most awesome keep-awake". Yeah, there isn't a lot of ambiguity here. This was absolutely getting away with it. A lot of noise and bluster in here, but I'd peg the probability that Apple stays firm at 100%.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
The issue with your analysis is the long standing approval and acquiescence on Apple's part. The app itself, and each update, only ever went out with Apple's explicit acknowledgment, review and consent.

anigbrowl 6y ago

But there already is a bright line rule here, it has just not been diligently enforced up to now. The basic argument is that the Amphetamine app has been able to slide for so long that the ToS provision it violates should be treated as a dead letter, or as if some statute of limitations had expired; the Amphetamine brand has existed so long (and under such favorable conditions) in the app store that the developer now has an economic interest in the brand, gained through a reliance on Apple's non-enforcement of this ToS provision. The developer could try suing Apple on the basis of laches, the legal doctrine whereby if one party has 'slept on their rights' so long that the situation changed, they can't suddenly decide to enforce a term later. But there's no hard and fast rule about this, and since it would tie Apple's hands they'd probably fight it tooth and nail, throwing enough legal resources at it to wear out any opposition.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
The only bright line rule in the provision is that an app should not facilitate the trade in controlled substances, and it doesn't.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  FTA: Apple has accused Amphetamine of violating the following guideline: 1.4.3 Apps that encourage consumption of tobacco and vape products, illegal drugs, or excessive amounts of alcohol are not permitted on the App Store. Apps that encourage minors to consume any of these substances will be rejected. Facilitating the sale of marijuana, tobacco, or controlled substances (except for licensed pharmacies) isn’t allowed." Looks like you forgot some other stuff.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    No, it looks like you don't understand what "bright line rule" means.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      I understand it just fine. You are just trying to gin up a controversy where none exists.