Judge backs Apple in BlueMail's App Store antitrust case

AppleInsider

A key antitrust case against Apple and the App Store by BlueMail has been dismissed, potentially setting a precedent for the company's separate dispute with Epic Games.

BlueMail on the Mac

As Apple remains in a legal dispute with Epic Games over "Fortnite," another lawsuit bringing specific claims about the App Store has been chiefly dismissed. Blix, the developer of BlueMail, alleged that Apple had first infringed on its patents with "Sign in With Apple," then just as with "Fortnite," removed its app from the App Store.

According to Bloomberg, Judge Leonard P. Stark of the US District Court for the District of Delaware dismissed the antitrust claims without prejudice. He reportedly concluded that Blix Inc had failed to provide evidence of Apple's monopoly or anticompetitive conduct.

Arguing that Apple having the power to restrict competition is not evidence that it did so, Judge Stark also said that Blix's own claims undermined its case. Reportedly, Blix had said in its filings that it had achieved success on multiple platforms and was on sale for five years before being on the App Store.

Judge Stark said this demonstrated that the App Store is not essential to BlueMail's success.

He also dismissed the claim of patent infringement. Citing a previous US Supreme Court ruling regarding the ability to patent an idea, Judge Stark said Blix's claim did not qualify as a unique and inventive concept.

Not all of BlueMail's claims were dismissed. However, Judge Stark declined to rule on them, instead directing Blix and Apple to confer. The two companies are now required to inform the court whether the remaining claims will be filed.

Previously, Blix co-founder Ben Volach said that he believed the slow court process worked in Apple's favor. Blix was looking to recruit other developers to mount a class-action suit against Apple.

glennh

Plain and simple ruling that states:

No one has a RIGHT to be  allowed in or to sell their crap in Apple App Store nor do they have a RIGHT to  access to Apple’s customers via Apple’s platforms and devices unless Apple  grants them the privilege subject to Apple’s wishes and revocation at anytime and for any reason and yes Apple can “SHERLOCK” your non-patentable ideals!

crowley

glennh said:

Plain and simple ruling that states:

No one has a RIGHT to be  allowed in or to sell their crap in Apple App Store nor do they have a RIGHT to  access to Apple’s customers via Apple’s platforms and devices unless Apple  grants them the privilege subject to Apple’s wishes and revocation at anytime and for any reason and yes Apple can “SHERLOCK” your non-patentable ideals!

The right for "business is business" asshole behaviour must be protected.

sbdude

There’s no precedent set when a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice. It means they can refile the lawsuit upon providing another legal theory that supports their claims. If the judge had tossed the case with prejudice, that would be a different story.

lkrupp

crowley said:

glennh said:

Plain and simple ruling that states:

No one has a RIGHT to be  allowed in or to sell their crap in Apple App Store nor do they have a RIGHT to  access to Apple’s customers via Apple’s platforms and devices unless Apple  grants them the privilege subject to Apple’s wishes and revocation at anytime and for any reason and yes Apple can “SHERLOCK” your non-patentable ideals!

The right for "business is business" asshole behaviour must be protected.

crowley

Polite reminder: memes aren't facts.

crowley

Also, who even mentioned the Federal Government?  Weird retort.

lkrupp

crowley said:

Polite reminder: memes aren't facts.

In the case of the Federal Government ALL memes are fact. The incompetency, corruption, bureaucracy, mismanagement , hypocrisy of the Feds is legendary. And it amazes me that people like you want them to manage your lives from cradle to grave, all in the name of fairness and fake equality. And the Federal Government was mentoned because you see it as the savior from asshole companies like Apple.

lkrupp

sbdude said:

There’s no precedent set when a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice. It means they can refile the lawsuit upon providing another legal theory that supports their claims. If the judge had tossed the case with prejudice, that would be a different story.

In other words all the judge did was to tell BlueMail to come up with a different angle and refile. 

crowley

lkrupp said:

crowley said:

Polite reminder: memes aren't facts.

In the case of the Federal Government ALL memes are fact. The incompetency, corruption, bureaucracy, mismanagement , hypocrisy of the Feds is legendary. And it amazes me that people like you want them to manage your lives from cradle to grave, all in the name of fairness and fake equality. And the Federal Government was mentoned because you see it as the savior from asshole companies like Apple.

If I wanted the US Federal Government to manage my life from cradle to grave then I'd need to move to the USA and also become a citizen, neither of which I have any intention of doing.  Your argument would carry a lot more weight if you had a clue what you were talking about (company law) or who you are talking (not a US resident) to rather than assigning opinions to strangers on the internet.  

And no, memes aren't facts.  Ever.  Come on, you know this.

cloudguy

glennh said:

Plain and simple ruling that states:

No one has a RIGHT to be  allowed in or to sell their crap in Apple App Store nor do they have a RIGHT to  access to Apple’s customers via Apple’s platforms and devices unless Apple  grants them the privilege subject to Apple’s wishes and revocation at anytime and for any reason and yes Apple can “SHERLOCK” your non-patentable ideals!

1. BlueMail is a great app. I have been using it for years.
2. Google and Samsung had the right to "Sherlock" the iPhone. Right? Right???

flydog

sbdude said:

There’s no precedent set when a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice. It means they can refile the lawsuit upon providing another legal theory that supports their claims. If the judge had tossed the case with prejudice, that would be a different story.

What's your point? 

flydog

lkrupp said:

crowley said:

Polite reminder: memes aren't facts.

In the case of the Federal Government ALL memes are fact. The incompetency, corruption, bureaucracy, mismanagement , hypocrisy of the Feds is legendary. And it amazes me that people like you want them to manage your lives from cradle to grave, all in the name of fairness and fake equality. And the Federal Government was mentoned because you see it as the savior from asshole companies like Apple.

The same federal government that put a man on the moon, created the national highway system, rebuilt Europe after World War II, makes it possible for you to retire without worrying about costs of healthcare, and will be providing you with a free vaccine?

As with any human endeavour (including your own personal life), there is always going to be some incompetency, mismanagement, etc. 

Sound crazy somewhere else.  

killroy

flydog said:

sbdude said:

There’s no precedent set when a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice. It means they can refile the lawsuit upon providing another legal theory that supports their claims. If the judge had tossed the case with prejudice, that would be a different story.

What's your point? 

It's this.

A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court. A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It's not dismissed forever. ... Involuntary dismissals happen when the judge decides the case can't go forward because of a legal reason.

dysamoria

lkrupp said:

crowley said:

Polite reminder: memes aren't facts.

In the case of the Federal Government ALL memes are fact. The incompetency, corruption, bureaucracy, mismanagement , hypocrisy of the Feds is legendary. And it amazes me that people like you want them to manage your lives from cradle to grave, all in the name of fairness and fake equality. And the Federal Government was mentoned because you see it as the savior from asshole companies like Apple.

It’s unhealthy to believe everything is a black & white extreme or absolute. It’s generally also irrational and without factual merit. Apple is not your personal ego. Government is not fundamentally bad. Apple Insider forums are not the only place to have a life.

It’s no wonder that you see fairness and equity as fake, what with your extremist perception...

Go for a long walk. Jog even.

spock1234

cloudguy said:

glennh said:

Plain and simple ruling that states:

No one has a RIGHT to be  allowed in or to sell their crap in Apple App Store nor do they have a RIGHT to  access to Apple’s customers via Apple’s platforms and devices unless Apple  grants them the privilege subject to Apple’s wishes and revocation at anytime and for any reason and yes Apple can “SHERLOCK” your non-patentable ideals!

1. BlueMail is a great app. I have been using it for years.
2. Google and Samsung had the right to "Sherlock" the iPhone. Right? Right???

1. Nobody cares if you like this app. Your opinions are irrelevant in a court of law.
2. Weak Sauce and complete FAIL. glennh specifically said 'non-patentable ideas'. The iPhone is a thing, not an 'idea', and its tech is patented.

Try again ....

lam92103

This just seems like a very badly filed case and I donot think has any effect on Epic

Blix, the developer of BlueMail, alleged that Apple had first infringed on its patents with "Sign in With Apple," - This is a ludicrous claim. Have they not heard of OAuth or Sign in with Facebook?

Arguing that Apple having the power to restrict competition is not evidence that it did so, Judge Stark also said that Blix's own claims undermined its case. Reportedly, Blix had said in its filings that it had achieved success on multiple platforms and was on sale for five years before being on the App Store. Judge Stark said this demonstrated that the App Store is not essential to BlueMail's success. - Blix really needs a better lawyer. This is just shooting yourself in the foot. 


Not all of BlueMail's claims were dismissed. However, Judge Stark declined to rule on them, instead directing Blix and Apple to confer. The two companies are now required to inform the court whether the remaining claims will be filed. Previously, Blix co-founder Ben Volach said that he believed the slow court process worked in Apple's favor. Blix was looking to recruit other developers to mount a class-action suit against Apple. - Was he representing himself, coz it sure sounds like it

radarthekat

cloudguy said:

glennh said:

Plain and simple ruling that states:

No one has a RIGHT to be  allowed in or to sell their crap in Apple App Store nor do they have a RIGHT to  access to Apple’s customers via Apple’s platforms and devices unless Apple  grants them the privilege subject to Apple’s wishes and revocation at anytime and for any reason and yes Apple can “SHERLOCK” your non-patentable ideals!

1. BlueMail is a great app. I have been using it for years.
2. Google and Samsung had the right to "Sherlock" the iPhone. Right? Right???

In very large part, apparently so.  Not the way I’d have ruled regarding those situations, but yeah, I guess they did.  (sigh)

ericthehalfbee

sbdude said:

There’s no precedent set when a lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice. It means they can refile the lawsuit upon providing another legal theory that supports their claims. If the judge had tossed the case with prejudice, that would be a different story.

That’s a simplification.

The lawyers for Blix would have presented their strongest possible case. The idea they can simply refine their case isn’t really true, as it would imply their lawyers did a piss-poor job the first time, and will “get serious” next time.

If there were several possible avenues to take regarding this lawsuit you can bet they picked the best one to present. Any other legal theories they might have would be inferior to this case, making the likelihood of success even lower the second time around.

chasm

lKrupp reminds me of those Japanese soldiers who wasted years of their lives living in a fantasy world because nobody told them WWII was over, and when told they had difficulty believing it.