6 ms·

If I agree to sell your product, in the exchange I can obligate you to agree not to direct customers away from my store. Walmart doesn't display advertisements

If I agree to sell your product, in the exchange I can obligate you to agree not to direct customers away from my store. Walmart doesn't display advertisements for Target. A grocer that sells Joe's fruit would no longer sell it if it had stickers directing customers to Joe's Fruit Stand. Apple has no obligation to promote competitors. And any competitors are free to create their own package managers and sell their own software, they just can't expect Apple to market them. In commerce contracts, noncompete clauses are legal and ubiquitous. Is Android anti-competitive because I can't run Apple software on it? Apple has not cornered a market through anti-competitive practices. They became successful by selling superior product that is massively popular, and Apple is not the only hardware manufacturer, mobile or otherwise, nor the only software developer. The hardware and software markets have a myriad of vigorous competition on which Apple protecting its IP has negligible or no effect whatsoever. What software developers have AppStore policies run out of business? Developers are making more money than ever thanks to Apple.

stale2002 3y ago
> Apple has no obligation Did you read the article? The judges literally just said that yes they are obligated to allow this. Literally, yes, there is now a legal obligation, by the court system, to allow links to outside of app store payment options. > they just can't expect Apple to market them Yes they can (if thats what you are calling allowing outside links). Because thats what the judges just said Apple is forced to allow, by law. > through anti-competitive practices Actually, yes they did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice. That's what the judges just affirmed.
- Maursault 3y ago
  The article never once mentions "anti-competitive practice," nor, dare I say, does the judgment. While Epic's allegations of anti-trust were dismissed, the court found "Apple violated California's unfair competition laws by barring developers from telling users about other ways to pay." Your interpretation of this finding that Apple "did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice" is absurd, and you are merely attempting to couch terms in the same allegations that were dismissed. Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments, without any of the specifics that you are falsly claiming. And there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling, so even if your allegations are correct, which they are not, this likely isn't the final ruling. And it stands to reason that if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim anti-competitive practices when in fact the issue is whether they should be allowed to ignore their contractual oblication. Why would Apple be required to sell software for a developer if that developer undermines Apple's fee for doing so? Apple's appeal will likely drive this home. Or they will extract a fee for selling a developer's product for them in some other mannor. So maybe cool your jets a little, because not only are you not right, in fact, you are wrong.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    "the trial judge did find that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws" There's the line there from the article. > nor, dare I say, does the judgment. You can just read the judgement yourself. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games... Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law" > Your interpretation You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling. > Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says. > The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge. > there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling Did you not know that this was already the appeal? > if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them. If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them. > Why would Apple be required Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined. They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law. > not only are you not right Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you. The legal system is on my side, not yours.
    - Maursault 3y ago
      > "the trial judge did find that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws" > There's the line there from the article. You have used terminology that was absent from the article and the decision, namely, "anti-competitive practices." To be quite clear, the decision finding that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws in no way means that Apple engages in "anti-competitive practices." > > nor, dare I say, does the judgment. > You can just read the judgement yourself. > https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games... > Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law" Again, see above. You have over reached with your language, and are now trying to sweep that under the rug. > > Your interpretation > You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling. It is not in the ruling. The ruling does not use your terminology, "anti-competitive." > > Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. > They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says. That is not what it says. It says they violated California's unfair competition laws by not allowing alternate payment methods. It does not state Apple is required to allow outside links. So that is not what the ruling says. > > The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments > Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge. No, because you are using language that does not apply to the case nor Apple. You are being intentionally inaccurate to spin a false narrative. > > there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling > Did you not know that this was already the appeal? Irrelevant straw man. Did you read the article? "Apple may appeal... a larger group of judges on the 9th Circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court." > > if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim > Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them. > If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them. Then Apple can pull their contract for breaching agreed to terms of the contract. > > Why would Apple be required > Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined. That is not what the judge said. You are extrapolating beyond the scope of the case and incorrectly rewording, and the result is inaccurate at best and false at worst. > They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law. The California unfair competition law does not require Apple to allow links. > > not only are you not right > Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you. > The legal system is on my side, not yours. Unlikely. Laws and judgements are meticulous and specific. If the judgement does not include the order, "Apple is required to allow links to alternative forms of payment," which it does not, then that is not the judgement. The judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws, not that Apple engages in anti-competitive practices, and not that Apple is required to provide links to alternative forms of payment. Comprehension is critical here.

stale2002 3y ago

> Apple has no obligation Did you read the article? The judges literally just said that yes they are obligated to allow this. Literally, yes, there is now a legal obligation, by the court system, to allow links to outside of app store payment options. > they just can't expect Apple to market them Yes they can (if thats what you are calling allowing outside links). Because thats what the judges just said Apple is forced to allow, by law. > through anti-competitive practices Actually, yes they did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice. That's what the judges just affirmed.

Maursault 3y ago
The article never once mentions "anti-competitive practice," nor, dare I say, does the judgment. While Epic's allegations of anti-trust were dismissed, the court found "Apple violated California's unfair competition laws by barring developers from telling users about other ways to pay." Your interpretation of this finding that Apple "did have an illegal, and anti-competitive practice" is absurd, and you are merely attempting to couch terms in the same allegations that were dismissed. Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments, without any of the specifics that you are falsly claiming. And there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling, so even if your allegations are correct, which they are not, this likely isn't the final ruling. And it stands to reason that if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim anti-competitive practices when in fact the issue is whether they should be allowed to ignore their contractual oblication. Why would Apple be required to sell software for a developer if that developer undermines Apple's fee for doing so? Apple's appeal will likely drive this home. Or they will extract a fee for selling a developer's product for them in some other mannor. So maybe cool your jets a little, because not only are you not right, in fact, you are wrong.
- stale2002 3y ago
  "the trial judge did find that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws" There's the line there from the article. > nor, dare I say, does the judgment. You can just read the judgement yourself. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games... Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law" > Your interpretation You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling. > Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says. > The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge. > there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling Did you not know that this was already the appeal? > if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them. If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them. > Why would Apple be required Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined. They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law. > not only are you not right Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you. The legal system is on my side, not yours.
  - Maursault 3y ago
    > "the trial judge did find that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws" > There's the line there from the article. You have used terminology that was absent from the article and the decision, namely, "anti-competitive practices." To be quite clear, the decision finding that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws in no way means that Apple engages in "anti-competitive practices." > > nor, dare I say, does the judgment. > You can just read the judgement yourself. > https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/852/epic-games... > Its on page 1: " in favor of Epic on its claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law" Again, see above. You have over reached with your language, and are now trying to sweep that under the rug. > > Your interpretation > You can just read the quote that I posted. Its in the ruling. It is not in the ruling. The ruling does not use your terminology, "anti-competitive." > > Neither Apple, nor any storefront, is required to do their competition's marketing for them. > They are required to allow outside links. So yes, thats what the ruling says. That is not what it says. It says they violated California's unfair competition laws by not allowing alternate payment methods. It does not state Apple is required to allow outside links. So that is not what the ruling says. > > The judgement merely states that Apple can't ban links to other forms of payments > Oh, so you agree with me! Got it. I am glad that you agree, that yes Apple is required to allow outside links, and yes it broke California unfair competition laws, as determined by the judge. No, because you are using language that does not apply to the case nor Apple. You are being intentionally inaccurate to spin a false narrative. > > there is a pretty good chance Apple will appeal the ruling > Did you not know that this was already the appeal? Irrelevant straw man. Did you read the article? "Apple may appeal... a larger group of judges on the 9th Circuit or to the U.S. Supreme Court." > > if developers agree to Apple's terms, they should abide by them and not claim > Actually, if those terms of service include banning links, then no developers should not abide by illegal terms like that. As the judge ruled that such terms are illegal, and developers don't have to follow them. > If the judge rules that the terms break California law, then developers should not follow them. Then Apple can pull their contract for breaching agreed to terms of the contract. > > Why would Apple be required > Well, Apple would be required to allow outside links, because thats what the judge just determined. That is not what the judge said. You are extrapolating beyond the scope of the case and incorrectly rewording, and the result is inaccurate at best and false at worst. > They should required to do that, that are required of them, by the california unfair competition law. The California unfair competition law does not require Apple to allow links. > > not only are you not right > Hey, both the original judge and the appealed judge panel actually agree with me, not you. > The legal system is on my side, not yours. Unlikely. Laws and judgements are meticulous and specific. If the judgement does not include the order, "Apple is required to allow links to alternative forms of payment," which it does not, then that is not the judgement. The judge found that Apple violated California's unfair competition laws, not that Apple engages in anti-competitive practices, and not that Apple is required to provide links to alternative forms of payment. Comprehension is critical here.