Developer Blix claims new evidence of App Store 'monopoly' in court filing

AppleInsider

Developer Blix, maker of apps Followapp and BlueMail, on Friday filed an amended complaint against Apple claiming it has fresh evidence that the tech giant favors its own apps over similar offerings from third-parties in the App Store.

Apple SVP Craig Federighi presents "Sign in with Apple" at WWDC 2019. | Source: Blix v. Apple

The filing, lodged with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, augments a lawsuit from October claiming Apple infringed on BlueMail's patents with "Sign in with Apple" technology. Blix, founded by Ben and Dan Volach, also alleges Apple exerts a monopoly over its various App Stores to artificially suppress the reach of apps competing with apps like Mail.

According to the original filing, Sign in with Apple apes BlueMail's signature "Share Email" feature, which enables users to communicate "using manageable public interaction addresses, without revealing their private interaction addresses." (Emphasis in original.) Share Email generates a "reverse list" of contacts that ties user actions to their public address, a technique that creates a digital fence through which parties can send and receive messages to a unique public account without divulging their private email address.

Apple's Sign in with Apple feature includes a similar tool to protect users from unwanted email marketing that often comes part and parcel with single sign-on authentication systems. Apple's solution presents an option called "Hide My Email" which, when activated, obscures private email addresses by generating a unique Apple-hosted address specific to an app or web service. Subsequent communication sent to the generated address is forwarded to a user's private account. Further, relay addresses can be disabled at any time.

Along with patent infringement claims, Blix alleges Apple, after seeing a momentous rise in popularity on the macOS App Store, pulled BlueMail in May 2018. At the time, Apple attributed the takedown to a violation of App Store Review Guidelines, later explaining the app duplicated functionality of the Blix-owned TypeApp. Blix informed Apple that TypeApp had been removed from the App Store "weeks before" the tech giant accepted BlueMail. Still, Apple maintained the app was not in compliance with developer guidelines.

Following BlueMail's eviction, the Volachs penned an open letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook, imploring the executive to reinstate the app in a "struggle for fairness." Apple's response to the letter, the first communication with Blix since June, is included in Friday's filing and claims TypeApp was not properly removed from the App Store.

In order to "remove" an app from the App Store, developers must adhere to a specific procedure that involves archiving a title. Apple said Blix failed to follow these App Store rules, according to the filing.

"These shifting explanations were themselves not credible, and at times internally inconsistent. A developer removing their application from the App Store would, Apple acknowledged, remove the application from sale -- making it unavailable, rather than currently available on the App Store,' as Apple claimed when rejecting BlueMail," the document reads.

Further, the revised filing asserts Apple does accept "duplicate" -- in form or function -- apps from the same developer, noting the "highly similar" Telegram and Telegram Desktop are currently on offer on the macOS App Store.

Blix also takes issue with Apple's recent decision to make its own apps ineligible for customer ratings. The policy "immunizes" Apple from the negative feedback and comments other apps routinely face, according to the complaint.

Building on Apple's allegedly anticompetitive App Store practices, Blix claims the iOS version of the online software marketplace is intentionally designed to dissuade users from selecting apps that compete with first-party offerings. For example, paid advertisements and App Store Stories take up a significant portion of a search results page. This is in contrast to search features employed on the Google Play Store and Amazon Appstore, which immediately surfaces a variety of choices.

In its original filing, Blix cited a New York Times article that claimed Apple artificially suppressed BlueMail from appearing in App Store search results. Following publication of the report, Apple supposedly updated its search algorithms and as a result BlueMail jumped from No. 143 to No. 13 in results for simple keywords like "email."

Perhaps not coincidentally, Blix titles have enjoyed high rankings on competing App Stores.

"It was not an easy decision to proceed with this lawsuit against the largest tech company in the world," Ben Volach told The Washington Post on Friday. "Blix, and its BlueMail product, are the latest in Apple's long line of victims. Apple's monopoly over app distribution forecloses competition and harms consumers. Apple has also harmed additional developers who would otherwise compete fairly."

Volach is suing Apple for patent infringement and illegal monopolization of the App Store, and seeks an injunction, damages and legal fees.

Blix Amended Complaint by Mikey Campbell on Scribd

Kuyangkoh

Really? Why dont they make or form their own apps store much like Google and Amazon did. If you want to ride in my car, excuse me, you take the back seat...

stevewhitemd

Apple favors their own applications? Whoa, careful Mr. Volach, you almost knocked me over with that feather!

chaicka

Hmmm... Apple is definitely not the first to use the technique of “using manageable public interaction addresses, without revealing their private interaction addresses.” as the mechanism of protection. Namecheap’s WhoisGuard service (used to be paid service on annual fee) uses the same to protect domain owners from having their private email address being exposed in Whois Lookups. So, in this case, Namecheap has infringe Blix’s patent?

SpamSandwich

Ridiculous nonsense suit.

viclauyyc

But but Apple’s mail is a free service that comes with the OS. So how can Apple profits from it? 

If Apple really want to make more money, Apple should instead promote other email app which Apple can actually generate profit.

I just use App Store to search email app. The first one is not even Apple’s mail. It is Gmail.

rotateleftbyte

viclauyyc said:

But but Apple’s mail is a free service that comes with the OS. So how can Apple profits from it? 

Indeed. Using Apple Mail is optional as are so many other Apps. I have a whole mix of app suppliers on my MacBook. Thunderbird for Email, Firefox as my primary browser.

I've never used Apple Mail or any other default Email App since my whole email archive disappeared after a Windows Update.  I also don't do Email on my phone which many of my friends think is rather odd but it suits me perfectly.

I see this lawsuit as yet another attempt to extract money from Apple. I'd never heard of their products before this suit came to light. I'm not in the market for them so it is a case of 'meh'.

EsquireCats

chaicka said:

Hmmm... Apple is definitely not the first to use the technique of “using manageable public interaction addresses, without revealing their private interaction addresses.” as the mechanism of protection. Namecheap’s WhoisGuard service (used to be paid service on annual fee) uses the same to protect domain owners from having their private email address being exposed in Whois Lookups. So, in this case, Namecheap has infringe Blix’s patent?

The patent as asserted by Blix would also be covering the basic email forwarding specification in RFC 5321, literally section 3.4

3.4.  Forwarding for Address Correction or Updating

   Forwarding support is most often required to consolidate and simplify
   addresses within, or relative to, some enterprise and less frequently
   to establish addresses to link a person's prior address with a
   current one.  Silent forwarding of messages (without server
   notification to the sender), for security or non-disclosure purposes,
   is common in the contemporary Internet.

dewme

Since when did Apple become legally required to provide a level playing field for third party applications to play on Apple's platform?

Do these plaintiffs think Apple's App Store is some sort of public utility that was paid for with taxpayers money?

Monopoly? WTF, did Microsoft, the vast Linux community, Android, Chrome OS, and the Web suddenly go out of business?  

Self serving, opportunistic, entitlement asserting, parasites.

larryjw

There may be something patentable here, but mapping addresses from one  set to another is ubiquitous. The RFCs defining Internet protocols is rife with them. The differing implementations of NAT, network address translation, DHCP, VPN, keep device to device, network to network, application to application communication functioning, including security protocols at each level.

Seems highly unlikely Blix has any case accusing Apple of stealing their ideas. The Prior Art would suggest otherwise. 

mjtomlin

viclauyyc said:

But but Apple’s mail is a free service that comes with the OS. So how can Apple profits from it? 

If Apple really want to make more money, Apple should instead promote other email app which Apple can actually generate profit.

I just use App Store to search email app. The first one is not even Apple’s mail. It is Gmail.

This.

1. Apple makes MORE money from users purchasing 3rd party apps, not downloading their free 1st party apps.

2. Most of the Apple apps on the App Store come with the purchase of an iOS device. A device that's expected to have a certain amount of functionality built-in.

It is ridiculous to believe that the proprietor of a platform will not have an advantage over any 3rd parties they INVITE in to sell their own wares.

sdw2001

Like many of these suits, it won’t come down to anything non-lawyers will understand or agree with.  My brother is an IP lawyer and worked in the Eastern District of TX as well as a patent examiner.  What goes into these arguments is often beyond comprehension.  Look at Apple v. Samsung.  You had documentary evidence from Samsung stating “make it look like this (Apple product) and work like this.”  It still dragged on for 7 years...in the U.S. alone.  

In other words, it sounds like someone wants a quick settlement.  

swpalmer

Yet another abuse of patents. So ridiculous. Reminds me of this https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents/

lkrupp

sdw2001 said:

Like many of these suits, it won’t come down to anything non-lawyers will understand or agree with.  My brother is an IP lawyer and worked in the Eastern District of TX as well as a patent examiner.  What goes into these arguments is often beyond comprehension.  Look at Apple v. Samsung.  You had documentary evidence from Samsung stating “make it look like this (Apple product) and work like this.”  It still dragged on for 7 years...in the U.S. alone.  

In other words, it sounds like someone wants a quick settlement.  

Or an Apple buyout. Never heard of Blix until this.

flydog

SpamSandwich said:

Ridiculous nonsense suit.

Your absurd opinion is based on what?  The bare overview of the lawsuit described in the article?  

Did you read any of the court filings?  Are you a lawyer? Do you know anything at all about patent law, antitrust law, or civil litigation practice?

Of course not.

flydog

swpalmer said:

Yet another abuse of patents. So ridiculous. Reminds me of this https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents/

Another armchair lawyer.   

DAalseth

Have you ever looked at a Target ad or walked into the store and seen Target's house brand prominently displayed, with other name brands further back?
Ever seen that at Walmart? Sears when they were around? Other big retailers?
Yes, of course you have.
So if and I emphasize IF Apple did this they were only continuing a well established policy that stores have used for half a century or more. No "monopoly" just business. Retail is a hard nosed field.
Secondly he's claiming that his ranking suddenly went up after the story hit the New York Times. Hmmm, maybe because a few million people suddenly heard of his app and knew to search for it? Could that possibly be the reason the rankings went up? /S
As far as his app being ranked higher on other AppStores, let's see. Apple includes a perfectly good email app right out of the box. It's integrated with Apple's systems, and once you get your Mac or iDevice set up it's just there. There is little reason to look for another mail app, unless you need a specific function. 
His suit has had one effect though. I am now making a point of not using anything from Blix. I can't stand whiners.

dewme

DAalseth said:

Have you ever looked at a Target ad or walked into the store and seen Target's house brand prominently displayed, with other name brands further back?
Ever seen that at Walmart? Sears when they were around? Other big retailers?
Yes, of course you have.
So if and I emphasize IF Apple did this they were only continuing a well established policy that stores have used for half a century or more. No "monopoly" just business. Retail is a hard nosed field.
Secondly he's claiming that his ranking suddenly went up after the story hit the New York Times. Hmmm, maybe because a few million people suddenly heard of his app and knew to search for it? Could that possibly be the reason the rankings went up? /S
As far as his app being ranked higher on other AppStores, let's see. Apple includes a perfectly good email app right out of the box. It's integrated with Apple's systems, and once you get your Mac or iDevice set up it's just there. There is little reason to look for another mail app, unless you need a specific function. 
His suit has had one effect though. I am now making a point of not using anything from Blix. I can't stand whiners.

Good points. I’d argue that Sears jumped the shark when they adopted their “brand central” strategy which devalued their in-house brands that had a very solid reputation and brand loyalty. 

Speaking of SOLID, one of my all time favorite set of software design principles, Apple’s adherence to the “O” in SOLID, open-close principle, is one of the reasons iOS and macOS are so much more robust and stable than other operating systems. 

Apple provides a very clear separation and distinction between what’s built into the OS and what is considered an extension to the OS. The apps that are built into OS images have privileged access to OS capabilities that, if modified,  could destabilize and compromise the entire system or device. These built-in or privileged apps are extensively tested as part of OS builds. Since Apple could never test every combination of third party apps that could be installed on their OS they must draw a very clear distinction between built-in apps and third part apps. 

Any claims that Apple is trying to lock out third party apps that play by the rules for revenue or market share reasons are just plain silly. If just one third party app is able to compromise Apple’s OS or hijack the device the losses to Apple would be staggering. 

macky the macky

dewme said:

Apple provides a very clear separation and distinction between what’s built into the OS and what is considered an extension to the OS. The apps that are built into OS images have privileged access to OS capabilities that, if modified,  could destabilize and compromise the entire system or device. These built-in or privileged apps are extensively tested as part of OS builds. Since Apple could never test every combination of third party apps that could be installed on their OS they must draw a very clear distinction between built-in apps and third part apps. 

Now, if Apple could only make iOS stable...

Methinks Blix is pissing against the wind...

kimberly

This is part of the AppStore developer terms of service "If you app no longer functions as intended or your’e no longer actively supporting it, it will be removed from the App Store.”

There is a public transport app in Australia that has been abandoned by the developer .. nothing wrong with that, he had a crack, a good product but couldn't make enough $$$ and the author walked away.

Get this though. The app is still on the AppStore. When it was functional, the free version would not save favourite routes on exit but the premium version ($4.50) would.  The non-functionality is either due to the app's backend servers being unable to download timetables (transport authority requires a subscription?) or the timetable format has changed and that breaks the app.. whatever. The app's Facebook page is full of comments for the past 9 months about the non-functionality of the free & paid version.

Emails to the app's support address bounce and the registered business address has closed. I finally tracked down the developer on Linkedin who has left Australia and is now working for Uber in LA.

There is NO WHERE (I can find) on the Apple AppStore to report a non-functional app that is asking for a paid upgrade to a premium version. I ended up at an Apple store and was simply given an email address. I duly sent all the proof of both the app's non-functionality and no active support to the email address about 4 weeks ago, requesting it be removed from the AppStore, due to violation of the developer terms of service. Easy to verify for AppStore staff, just download the free version and see that no train, bus or ferry timetables are available - send an email to the support address and it will bounce after a few seconds (mailbox closed).

At the time of writing, the app is still on the Apple AppStore and will happily ask for $4.50 to upgrade to the premium version.

AppStore police are quick to jump on other 'popular' apps for ad-hoc violations but seem disinterested in having a smaller app on the platform despite being supplied with easily verifiable evidence of violation of developer terms and conditions. I guess I just see the AppStore as lacking consistency in regard to 3rd parties and more than a few disagreements seem to involve app popularity and $$$. So my point is, when I read any article regarding the Apple AppStore like this one, I don't see it as black and white. 

temperor

Yeah lets remove the first party apps, like FaceTime, the alternative ToTok works great! Oh the Irony ...