Judge backs Apple in BlueMail's App Store antitrust case
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.

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.
Comments
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!
In other words all the judge did was to tell BlueMail to come up with a different angle and refile.
And no, memes aren't facts. Ever. Come on, you know this.
2. Google and Samsung had the right to "Sherlock" the iPhone. Right? Right???
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.
It’s no wonder that you see fairness and equity as fake, what with your extremist perception...
Go for a long walk. Jog even.
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 ....
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
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.