carnegie

foregoneconclusion said:

carnegie said:

foregoneconclusion said:

godofbiscuitssf said:

So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?

The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only. 

foregoneconclusion said:

flydog said:

foregoneconclusion said:

godofbiscuitssf said:

So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?

The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only. 

What? No. Wrong!

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf

"The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems."

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/supreme-court-rejects-apples-request-for-epic-app-store-review#

So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals.

The injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies applies nationwide even though it's based on violation of California law.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't extrapolate state laws to cover the entire country. You can say CA has the right to enforce the law because there isn't a federal law regarding anti-steering that takes precedence. 

I get where you're coming from, and Apple made various unsuccesful arguments about the broad scope of the injunction. Regardless, this injunction applies nationwide - e.g., to apps downloaded outside of California and sales made outside of California and with regard to developers that operate outside of California.

Sometimes remedies for state law violations end up effectively applying nationwide. One important question is, does the court in question have proper jurisdiction over the defendant on which it is imposing a remedy? In this case there's no doubt that it does. And as for Epic, the courts have essentially accepted its argument that it can be harmed even by other developers not being able to steer their users to other payment options because those other developers might steer their users to Epic's own store to make payments relating to their iOS apps. So even though other developers aren't parties to this action (and it isn't a class action), the imposed remedy applies to them as well.

tech_traveller said:

Well, despite Tim Sweeney being a crook, you can't deny that this case helped developers.

Now they can advertise prices where they get 100% of the income, maybe we will even get cheaper options now.

That (i.e. developers keeping 100% of income) doesn't seem likely, at least not in most circumstances where they weren't already able to keep 100% of income.

This injunction doesn't abrogate Apple's right to collect a commission for, among other things, the use of its IP. Developers will still have to use the App Store to distribute their apps and still be bound by the terms of Apple's developer agreements, minus the specific terms which Apple can no longer enforce. Unless Apple decides otherwise, they'll still be required to pay a commission on certain kinds of digital sales - whether Apple processes the payments or not.

Apple might decide to change some of its (still legal) terms or lower its commissions under certain circumstances, but it doesn't seem likely to me that it will reward those developers who decide to direct users to other payment options by completely doing away with the commission requirements that currently apply to certain kinds of digital sales. 
 
Some developers may find ways to cheat and not pay all the commission which they owe, but in doing so they would be risking Apple figuring that out and terminating their developer accounts for breach of contract. 

foregoneconclusion said:

godofbiscuitssf said:

So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?

The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only. 

foregoneconclusion said:

flydog said:

foregoneconclusion said:

godofbiscuitssf said:

So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?

The anti-steering ruling was specific to California state law. I believe Apple is still appealing that ruling, but if they ultimately lose then it's CA only. 

What? No. Wrong!

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf

"The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals found last year that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by limiting the ability of developers to communicate about alternative payment systems."

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/supreme-court-rejects-apples-request-for-epic-app-store-review#

So what I was wrong about was that the appeal per anti-steering was ongoing. SC refused to hear both Epic and Apple's appeals.

The injunction against Apple's anti-steering policies applies nationwide even though it's based on violation of California law.

godofbiscuitssf said:

So Apple has to allow companies to say "you go to <company's website URL> to subscribe", but Epic and other companies don't have a right to their own app stores?

More or less, that's correct. Developers can include links (and information)  in their apps that direct users to other payment options.

Also, Apple still doesn't have to reinstate Epic's developer account so Epic may remain unable to distribute its Fortnite app on iOS.

Further, Apple can still require the payment of licensing fees for the use of its IP even though payments go through other parties. Depending on how Apple decides to handle that, it could make for a messy situation.

This decision to deny cert on Epic's petition in particular is pretty important. It's going to make it harder for anyone - to include the DOJ - to establish that Apple has monopoly power in certain relevant markets and thus to establish that Apple has violated anti-trust laws.

One of the things the Ninth Circuit did in its opinion in this case is outline the circumstances under which a relevant antitrust market can be limited to a single brand. Under the guidelines the Ninth Circuit established it will be difficult to show that iOS distribution, for example, is a relevant antitrust market. The Supreme Court just decided not to review those guidelines and perhaps overrule or alter them. The Supreme Court didn't actually affirm them, so it's still plausible that it will in the future effectively overrule them. But for now it's a positive development when it comes to the likelihood that those guidelines, or something close, will live on.

What the Ninth Circuit said on this front is only legally binding in that circuit, but courts in other circuits may find it persuasive if they need to consider such matters themselves. At any rate, I think this cert denial makes certain kinds of antitrust actions the DOJ may bring in the future more difficult and may incline it to file such actions in a different circuit.