3 ms·

It actually literally says that: "The Court concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property."

• gpm 5y ago
  Yes, those words were said, but you are ignoring the context and assuming it means something that it does not. The broader context is that the judge is justifying why Apple's actions do not violate the Sherman Act. The immediate context is as follows: > Indeed, 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 use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, see supra Facts §§ II.C., V.A.2.b., V.B.2.c., Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. [...] The judge is not here determining that Apple is due any percentage of non-in-app purchases given the current contract, the judge is determining that (as far as the Sherman Act goes) apple is entitled to create a contract licensing it's intellectual property in that manner. Apart from the lack of any language finding such a contract exists, finding so would be wholly inappropriate given that it isn't a question on trial in the case.
  • rezonant 5y ago
    Exactly. And it also points out how hard it would be for Apple to extract those fees, which conceivably would be difficult indeed. Apple could just deny publishing your app if you didn't sign an agreement requiring you to pay 30% of your externally sourced revenue via your iOS app but the enforcement would now become (mostly) manual, whereas with IAP, compliance with the fees are unavoidable as they all go through Apple's software