![]() ![]() ![]() The specifics of how these external payment options will function within the broader ecosystem of the App Store also remain hazy and require further definition. The language in the judgement mentions adding links or buttons to apps, and the definition of "button" will probably be heavily contested in future - is it possible, for example, that much of the external payment process can be incorporated into an app, culminating in a "button" that actually does the transaction externally? Or can the button really only be a link of sorts, saying "there's an alternative payment method", with all the details and functionality being on a website somewhere? The order is deceptively simple, but once you start digging into it, it's very unclear what the boundaries on what is permitted will be. The key decision about Apple's status as a non-monopoly in this market may be unlikely to change, but there are still plenty of negative spaces in the ruling that are left wide open to be clarified on appeal, or interpreted and explored through future court cases.Ī major aspect here is the detail of the ruling that Apple must permit app developers to inform users about non-Apple payment options both within their apps and games, and through direct contact with them using contact details requested in-app. Several comments in the judgement are fairly critical of how Epic handled its legal case and one can reasonably interpret them as hints that the judge also felt that her courtroom was being used as a stage for a PR battle to some extent. ![]() Honestly, even with the case now concluded (pending appeal proceedings), one thing I'm still very unsure about is to what extent Epic actually anticipated significant legal victories, versus the extent to which it's using the courts as a way to draw attention to its claims and frame itself as a crusader in the public eye. Judgment in the Epic vs Apple trial isn't the end of the story it's at most a key paragraph in the prologue to a complex, evolving situation ![]() It's much less clear whether Epic can reasonably expect to overturn significant portions of the ruling on appeal - a judge in an appeal case may tweak the edges of things somewhat, but it seems unlikely that Epic will find a judge who disagrees profoundly with the core of the existing ruling, namely the decision that Apple is not a monopoly, even if it does engage in certain anti-competitive behaviours. Even those aspects of the ruling which do have clear substance may not be set in stone it's clear already that Epic intends to appeal the judgement. In a sense, it's the shapes of the negative spaces in this ruling that are its most interesting aspects - the things the court did not address or chose to leave to interpretation in future legal, or perhaps even legislative, proceedings. Much and more has been written about that judgement, which largely speaking does not uphold the bulk of Epic's claims against Apple, while also being careful not to fully exonerate Apple either - but one thing that seems increasingly clear as lawyers and commentators analyse the ruling is that far from being the white smoke that indicates a decision has been finalized, this is only the start of a much longer and more complex process to decide exactly how digital marketplaces and app stores are to be regulated. After many months and endless dissection of the various revelations which emerged from the evidence made public in the legal battle between Apple and Epic, we have a judgement. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |