4 ms·

> Apple says that by transacting with a customer _by any means_ on their platform, you owe them a part of that transaction. That is indeed what the US Federal

> Apple says that by transacting with a customer _by any means_ on their platform, you owe them a part of that transaction. That is indeed what the US Federal court ruled in Apple v. Epic, and all possible appeals have let that ruling stand. > as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. 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 commission. 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. https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/

Alpha3031 3y ago
Fortunately for EU regulators, US judicial precedent is not binding there while their Digital Markets Act is. We'll see if they take this lying down.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  Given treaties between the EU and US, I doubt the EU will be able to strip companies of their intellectual property rights. We'll see.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    That's not how intellectual property works.
    - GeekyBear 3y ago
      Getting paid when others use your intellectual property is exactly how intellectual property works.
      - mpweiher 3y ago
        "Intellectual property" is a right granted by states in order to further specific goals of the state.
        GeekyBear 3y ago
        "Treaties" are binding agreements between nations that place limits on what they may or may not do. Fun fact: The EU itself is based on treaties between it's member states.
Veedrac 3y ago
I would think that case is at least meaningfully in my favour. The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform. The ruling is meaningfully weaker than what I'd expect from DMA, but this is natural, the legal case was argued on existing law, DMA is new.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  > The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform. The judge literally ruled that no matter who you use as a payment processor, Apple could still charge a commission for using it's intellectual property. The same summary of the Apple v. Epic decision I linked to above has a good section on what the anti-steering section of the ruling means and people seem to misunderstand what happened there as well. > "developers cannot communicate lower prices on other platforms either within iOS or to users obtained from the iOS platform"... "These provisions can be severed without any impact on the integrity of the ecosystem and is tethered to [California] legislative policy." Notice the references to “other platforms”; those are the web, Android, or, in cases like Fortnite, other consoles. Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ argument is not that Apple has to allow different payment options within an app — as noted in the previous section, that is Apple’s right to control, and even mandate — but rather that Apple can’t stop a developer from telling users that they can go outside the app to another platform to acquire digital content. https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ Apple's move to open up alternate payment processors was not a result of the Apple v. Epic decision. That has more to do with preexisting regulatory rulings in places like the Netherlands and (of course) the DMA.
  - Veedrac 3y ago
    This ruling means at minimum that a company can say ‘or sign up for less at on our website’. Cf. Spotify, who were allowed to serve customers that signed in from an account with an off-app subscription but were not allowed to tell the customer that this alternative subscription existed.

Alpha3031 3y ago

Fortunately for EU regulators, US judicial precedent is not binding there while their Digital Markets Act is. We'll see if they take this lying down.

GeekyBear 3y ago
Given treaties between the EU and US, I doubt the EU will be able to strip companies of their intellectual property rights. We'll see.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  That's not how intellectual property works.
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    Getting paid when others use your intellectual property is exactly how intellectual property works.
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      "Intellectual property" is a right granted by states in order to further specific goals of the state.
      - GeekyBear 3y ago
        "Treaties" are binding agreements between nations that place limits on what they may or may not do. Fun fact: The EU itself is based on treaties between it's member states.

Veedrac 3y ago

I would think that case is at least meaningfully in my favour. The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform. The ruling is meaningfully weaker than what I'd expect from DMA, but this is natural, the legal case was argued on existing law, DMA is new.

GeekyBear 3y ago
> The anti-steering ruling supports my point that while Apple can charge whatever commission it wants on its payment platform, this should not entitle it to ban or tax competing means of trade discovered through the platform. The judge literally ruled that no matter who you use as a payment processor, Apple could still charge a commission for using it's intellectual property. The same summary of the Apple v. Epic decision I linked to above has a good section on what the anti-steering section of the ruling means and people seem to misunderstand what happened there as well. > "developers cannot communicate lower prices on other platforms either within iOS or to users obtained from the iOS platform"... "These provisions can be severed without any impact on the integrity of the ecosystem and is tethered to [California] legislative policy." Notice the references to “other platforms”; those are the web, Android, or, in cases like Fortnite, other consoles. Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ argument is not that Apple has to allow different payment options within an app — as noted in the previous section, that is Apple’s right to control, and even mandate — but rather that Apple can’t stop a developer from telling users that they can go outside the app to another platform to acquire digital content. https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ https://stratechery.com/2021/the-apple-v-epic-decision/ Apple's move to open up alternate payment processors was not a result of the Apple v. Epic decision. That has more to do with preexisting regulatory rulings in places like the Netherlands and (of course) the DMA.
- Veedrac 3y ago
  This ruling means at minimum that a company can say ‘or sign up for less at on our website’. Cf. Spotify, who were allowed to serve customers that signed in from an account with an off-app subscription but were not allowed to tell the customer that this alternative subscription existed.