4 ms·

> Today's denial of petitions for certiorari means that Apple has mostly run out of legal options to prevent changes to its App Store policies now that multiple

> Today's denial of petitions for certiorari means that Apple has mostly run out of legal options to prevent changes to its App Store policies now that multiple courts have found its "anti-steering" language anticompetitive. So the courts agree that Apple uses anticompetitive practices.

SllX 3y ago
A court found that Apple used a specific business practice found to be anticompetitive, this was upheld on appeal and SCOTUS declined to address any legal questions. So, to restate what you said more correctly: a court has found Apple used an anticompetitive practice and an Appeals court upheld it or “agreed” if you prefer. Law is a whole lot more boring when you murder the rhetorical intent in how people interpret it with extreme prejudice.
MBCook 3y ago
> So the courts agree that Apple uses AN anticompetitive PRACTICE. Fixed it. They said not allowing developers to say it was possible to pay externally was against the law. I think a California law? They did not say that about Apple’s fee, the existence of only Apple’s App Store, or anything else. It was limited to anti-steering.
tick_tock_tick 3y ago
Yes, that's correct. Hopefully some of their other anti-competitiveness practices get ruled against but for now it's rather limited to some of their most flagrant behavior.
kelnos 3y ago
As siblings point out, the courts agree to one single anti-competitive practice. The thing here is that the only thing Epic won on was a fairly clear California law, the anti-steering stuff. While this is good news, this isn't really groundbreaking: it's an unsurprising legal result, given that the CA law exists, and doesn't conflict with any federal law. The bits where Epic lost were much more significant, and were related to plain-vanilla anti-trust law. Law which I had hoped would apply here and break up Apple's iOS app distribution monopoly.

SllX 3y ago

A court found that Apple used a specific business practice found to be anticompetitive, this was upheld on appeal and SCOTUS declined to address any legal questions. So, to restate what you said more correctly: a court has found Apple used an anticompetitive practice and an Appeals court upheld it or “agreed” if you prefer. Law is a whole lot more boring when you murder the rhetorical intent in how people interpret it with extreme prejudice.

MBCook 3y ago

> So the courts agree that Apple uses AN anticompetitive PRACTICE. Fixed it. They said not allowing developers to say it was possible to pay externally was against the law. I think a California law? They did not say that about Apple’s fee, the existence of only Apple’s App Store, or anything else. It was limited to anti-steering.

tick_tock_tick 3y ago

Yes, that's correct. Hopefully some of their other anti-competitiveness practices get ruled against but for now it's rather limited to some of their most flagrant behavior.

kelnos 3y ago

As siblings point out, the courts agree to one single anti-competitive practice. The thing here is that the only thing Epic won on was a fairly clear California law, the anti-steering stuff. While this is good news, this isn't really groundbreaking: it's an unsurprising legal result, given that the CA law exists, and doesn't conflict with any federal law. The bits where Epic lost were much more significant, and were related to plain-vanilla anti-trust law. Law which I had hoped would apply here and break up Apple's iOS app distribution monopoly.