4 ms·

> Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website? I've read all 180 pages of the

by stale2002 5y ago

> Is the judge saying that Apple could try to collect 30% of Netflix subscriptions or Fortnite purchases made via the website? I've read all 180 pages of the ruling, so will give my opinion. IMO this claim about still owing commission comes from statements that the judge said, regarding a separate hypothetical of if alternative payment systems were included in the app itself, then those alternative payment systems would still owe a commission. I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website. Yes, some lawyers have suggested maybe that would be the case. But I do not know of any explicit statement where the judge said this clearly. Happy to be proven wrong, but I didn't see that explicitly from the judge. It is only hypothosized.

GeekyBear 5y ago
>I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website. Here you are, taken from the ruling text: >Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. >Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that comission. >Apple is entitled to license it's intellectual property for a fee, and to guard its intellectual property from uncompensated use by others. >While the court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of it's intellectual property. >To the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, such a ruling is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law
- stale2002 5y ago
  I recognize those statements, but I still think they are unclear. Being entitled to a commission, or payment for intellectual property could mean many things. In order to be 100% on this interpretation, I would have liked to see the judge directly state what is the whole point of all of this, if there is no possible price benefits to this. If there is zero economic gains to be made, through directing people out of app, then why make this ruling. But yes, I recognize how the statements you are talking about, could be interpreted that way. I just don't see how the judge directly addressed this problem I'd have with the ruling. IE why overturn anti steering rules if the things you steer too give apple the same exact commission?

GeekyBear 5y ago

>I have not found a direct statement, from the judge itself, specifically claiming that Apple would still be owed commission if the payment was made outside of the app, on a website. Here you are, taken from the ruling text: >Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional. >Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that comission. >Apple is entitled to license it's intellectual property for a fee, and to guard its intellectual property from uncompensated use by others. >While the court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of it's intellectual property. >To the extent Epic Games suggests that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, such a ruling is inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law

stale2002 5y ago
I recognize those statements, but I still think they are unclear. Being entitled to a commission, or payment for intellectual property could mean many things. In order to be 100% on this interpretation, I would have liked to see the judge directly state what is the whole point of all of this, if there is no possible price benefits to this. If there is zero economic gains to be made, through directing people out of app, then why make this ruling. But yes, I recognize how the statements you are talking about, could be interpreted that way. I just don't see how the judge directly addressed this problem I'd have with the ruling. IE why overturn anti steering rules if the things you steer too give apple the same exact commission?