"Along with consumer surveys indicating security is important, the ruling cites Tim Sweeney, noting "Even Epic's CEO testified that he purchased an iPhone over an Android smartphone in part because it offers 'better security and privacy.’”
Great victor for Apple over the Chinese communist owned Epic games.
Tik Tok spying for China is in the news but Epic is just as dangerous
I disagree on the fundamental assessment that only Apple can operate a secure digital store. With the DMA coming in Europe Apple will be forced to allow 3rd party stores.
Don’t get me started on blocking developer accounts you disagree with. That sounds like communist stance to me.
Well don’t try to prove it with our phones and data. We chose Apple for the secure environment .
Government regulations being proposed will make this ‘victory’ moot. So maybe Epic can open its own app store in the EU but not in the U.S. ? How ill that be handled?
This will kill any proposed legislation in the US. Nobody is going to try and pass a law that overrides the rulings of two courts. I think they were waiting for this outcome before moving on, and now any proposed bills will be shelved.
As to allowing a separate store in the EU it will be simple. Depending on the country you live you’ll get a slightly different version of iOS.
What I expect to happen in the EU is numerous criminals and shady developers are going to infest iPhones with malware and privacy invading features. Users will be screaming at Apple (who else will they blame) and Apple will sue the EU for instituting a law that directly caused harm to iPhone users. Unlike the imaginary harm the EU is trying to prevent by forcing 3rd party stores.
Excuse me while go troll Epic and the Coalition for App Fairness over this loss. ߘ馬t;/div>
That’s not how this works. Unless the courts rule something is unconstitutional (that didn’t happen in this case), a court ruling doesn’t stop pending legislation. In fact, if lawmakers don’t like how a court rules on something under current law, their remedy is specifically to pass legislation to change the law.
I’d rather they didn’t, but that’s the remedy. If courts rule that existing law won’t force a change that they want, their next step is to try to pass a law that will.
You are right. So it requires politicians who can see the big picture. That is why I said don’t underestimate the stupidity of the Biden DOJ, they could be working for the Chinese communists to take down Apple and they don’t even know it
I say this based on what I have seen the last two years after I helped vote in these guys
For those who might be disappointed by the latest in a string of defeats for Epic:
Take a really good, hard, objective look at what this company has done, said, and plans to do, along with who has controlling interest in it. Read the stories on this very site about how Epic was fined millions for shady behaviour wrt in-app purchases.
I think you’ll find that that Epic is not the “freedom fighter” you might imagine it is.
Likewise, the original judge in this case correctly ruled *against* Apple’s anti-steering provisions IMO, and since no court has overturned that ruling either, this case also stopped Apple from anti-competitive behaviour in that regard as well.
The thing is that Federal Judge ruled that Apple "anti-steering" policy violated the CA Unfair Competition Law not any Federal anti-competition laws. First, it's questionable that this judgement can force Apple to adhere to the CA UCL, in every State. Each State have their own anti-competition laws that don't necessarily agree with other States anti-competition laws. This was one of complaints Apple addressed with their appeal. How can a Federal Judge force Apple to comply with a CA law, in every US State? It would be different if Apple anti-steering policies violated Federal anti-competition or anti-trust laws. So on the surface, Apple might only have to allow developers to inform customers of other method of payments (within their apps) or allow links to them, only in CA.
And second, the CA Unfair Competition Law is a vague catch-all law for when a company haven't been found to be violating any actual anti-trust or anti-competition laws, but the courts still thinks that the company behavior or practice is "unfair" to its competitors or consumers. The courts gets to decide what constitute "unfair". There is no law that clearly states that Apple "anti-steering" policy is anti-competitive.
The Commerce Clause of the Constitution prevents state laws that restrict interstate commerce. The Supremacy Clause obviates state laws entirely when they conflict with federal law. California’s law is likely unconstitutional but also somewhat irrelevant as enforcement would also violate the Constitution.
Great victor for Apple over the Chinese communist owned Epic games.
Tik Tok spying for China is in the news but Epic is just as dangerous
I disagree on the fundamental assessment that only Apple can operate a secure digital store. With the DMA coming in Europe Apple will be forced to allow 3rd party stores.
Don’t get me started on blocking developer accounts you disagree with. That sounds like communist stance to me.
LOL. Way to purposefully mischaracterize. Apple didn’t block Epic because they “disagreed” with them. Epic BREACHED CONTRACT and extorted funds by redirecting customers.
No one said Apple is the only one who CAN operate a secure storefront that (mostly) respect user privacy. But they are the only ones doing it now. Based on what the other players are doing now, it stands to reason that’s what they’d be doing to apple customers if the system were broken down. No thanks. Get out of here with that disengenuous crap.
No one wants things to be like they are on PC and Android. And no one wants it to be the Wild West days of the internet all over again either.
We go to apple for many reasons. One of the big ones is to not be jerked around by every third party who thinks of a new way to put people through hell just to enjoy an app.
It’s right that Apple won. They worked hard to build a reliably secure system and that’s what people flock to. The junk farmers can sell their warez on windows and android.
Certainly hope this ruling chills the nonsensical legislation being considered. And while other countries have zero requirement to consider US decisions, I would not be surprised if it makes other entities think a little harder about what they might pursue....
But yes, Bonehead Biden, Warrior Chief Warren, and others may still push their fundamentally misguided intrusion into the the free enterprise economy (among the definitions of "misguided" would be: thinking success=monopoly; believing the government can/should force businesses to relinquish legal business models, methods, and the recouping of enormous accrued development costs; to force companies to dismantle key competitive market advantages (see below), risking the business as well as consumers; that they can erroneously re-define a produce feature as an entire market; that they ignore the collective consumer perspective that no wrongs need to be righted; etc...
This aspect of the ruling is sparkling in its clarity of perhaps the main issue at play here - something I have always felt and posted here numerous times (bold emphasis mine):
The ruling states that Apple makes it clear that by improving security and privacy, "it is tapping into consumer demand and differentiating its products from those of its competitors— goals that are plainly procompetitive rationales."
Government regulations being proposed will make this ‘victory’ moot. So maybe Epic can open its own app store in the EU but not in the U.S. ? How ill that be handled?
This will kill any proposed legislation in the US. Nobody is going to try and pass a law that overrides the rulings of two courts. I think they were waiting for this outcome before moving on, and now any proposed bills will be shelved.
As to allowing a separate store in the EU it will be simple. Depending on the country you live you’ll get a slightly different version of iOS.
What I expect to happen in the EU is numerous criminals and shady developers are going to infest iPhones with malware and privacy invading features. Users will be screaming at Apple (who else will they blame) and Apple will sue the EU for instituting a law that directly caused harm to iPhone users. Unlike the imaginary harm the EU is trying to prevent by forcing 3rd party stores.
Excuse me while go troll Epic and the Coalition for App Fairness over this loss. 😉
That’s not how this works. Unless the courts rule something is unconstitutional (that didn’t happen in this case), a court ruling doesn’t stop pending legislation. In fact, if lawmakers don’t like how a court rules on something under current law, their remedy is specifically to pass legislation to change the law.
I’d rather they didn’t, but that’s the remedy. If courts rule that existing law won’t force a change that they want, their next step is to try to pass a law that will.
It may not stop it but it will slow it down. And there is still the SCOTUS, from which Federal courts operate under. They have to power to rule any new laws passed by Congress unconstitutional and their ruling in final.
If congress is not worry about the outcome of this appeal ..... remember this? Why would the DOJ, which is made up of President Biden people, make such an effort on Epic behalf if they thought the outcome would not have any bearing on future laws the administration is trying pass against big tech?
>"The United States believes that its participation at oral argument would be helpful to the court, especially in explaining how the errors (in antitrust law interpretation) could significantly harm antitrust enforcement beyond the specific context of this case," the Justice Department wrote on Friday.<
Well, it seems like a second Federal Judge just agreed that Judge Gonzales did not misinterpret the current anti-trust laws.
I was glad to see some substantive discussion in the opinion relating to single brand antitrust markets. The Supreme Court has said very little on this issue beyond opening up the possibility that a single brand can represent a relevant market for antitrust law purposes. The Ninth Circuit had probably said more than other circuits, but it still hadn't provided much clarity on the issue. This Ninth Circuit decision provides some clarity:
In sum, to establish a single-brand aftermarket, a plaintiff must show: (1) the challenged aftermarket restrictions are “not generally known” when consumers make their foremarket purchase; (2) “significant” information costs prevent accurate life-cycle pricing; (3) “significant” monetary or non-monetary switching costs exist; and (4) general market-definition principles regarding cross-elasticity of demand do not undermine the proposed single-brand market.
Under these tests, it would be pretty hard to establish that iOS app distribution is a relevant market for antitrust law purposes. For one thing, at this point I suspect most buyers of iPhones are aware that the App Store is (for most) the only way to get apps on their iPhone.
It may not stop it but it will slow it down. And there is still the SCOTUS, from which Federal courts operate under. They have to power to rule any new laws passed by Congress unconstitutional and their ruling in final.
Well, yes and no. Any SCOTUS decision that rules a law or practice unconstitutional until a later court overrules that decision, as evidenced by the recent overturning of RvW.
But, SCOTUS does not have the power to unilaterally declare any law they don't like to be unconstitutional anytime they want. Someone must present the case to them, and that someone must have "standing", that is to say, they have been, or will be, harmed by the law or practice. This "standing" requirement is why parts of the Patriot Act have yet to be declared unconstitutional. When the affected parties, the people who have "standing", look like they going to be successful at a challenge, DOJ drops the charges, thus leaving the parties with no standing, but still out all the money they spent on lawyers, and not at all compensated for any other trouble they have might have suffered.
If only we had a President with the desire and balls to challenge it him or herself. As the executive charged with enforcing it, I think he or she would have standing.
Comments
Loving this one.
I say this based on what I have seen the last two years after I helped vote in these guys
But yes, Bonehead Biden, Warrior Chief Warren, and others may still push their fundamentally misguided intrusion into the the free enterprise economy (among the definitions of "misguided" would be: thinking success=monopoly; believing the government can/should force businesses to relinquish legal business models, methods, and the recouping of enormous accrued development costs; to force companies to dismantle key competitive market advantages (see below), risking the business as well as consumers; that they can erroneously re-define a produce feature as an entire market; that they ignore the collective consumer perspective that no wrongs need to be righted; etc...
This aspect of the ruling is sparkling in its clarity of perhaps the main issue at play here - something I have always felt and posted here numerous times (bold emphasis mine):
The ruling states that Apple makes it clear that by improving security and privacy, "it is tapping into consumer demand and differentiating its products from those of its competitors— goals that are plainly procompetitive rationales."
If congress is not worry about the outcome of this appeal ..... remember this? Why would the DOJ, which is made up of President Biden people, make such an effort on Epic behalf if they thought the outcome would not have any bearing on future laws the administration is trying pass against big tech?
https://www.engadget.com/department-of-justice-epic-v-apple-filing-165153120.html
>"The United States believes that its participation at oral argument would be helpful to the court, especially in explaining how the errors (in antitrust law interpretation) could significantly harm antitrust enforcement beyond the specific context of this case," the Justice Department wrote on Friday.<
Well, it seems like a second Federal Judge just agreed that Judge Gonzales did not misinterpret the current anti-trust laws.
Under these tests, it would be pretty hard to establish that iOS app distribution is a relevant market for antitrust law purposes. For one thing, at this point I suspect most buyers of iPhones are aware that the App Store is (for most) the only way to get apps on their iPhone.