Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Appeals EU Digital Markets Act Interoperability Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That wasn’t by codified government overreach regulation.
It was just by the court who followed the law and codified statutes….
What’s the difference to you if a law is written that does x and a court doing a ruling that also states x?
The lawsuit did not turn either company into a public utility like the DMA did to Apple.
The lawsuit effectively made every API used by developers a fair use case.
The U.S. court that mandated free links seems to be permanent( can’t find any appeals possible)
The DMA haven’t made anything more different.
It was a lawsuit however. Not a set of overbearing regulations.
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. - Wikipedia
Not exactly as you claim.
A lawsuit that gave away oracles IP for free in accordance with existing law.It was a lawsuit however. Not a set of overbearing regulations.
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Not exactly as you claim.
No different from apples Apples IP being given away for free according with the law.
Please square this circle.
It’s currently being appealed. That doesn’t mean it’ll win, but appeals are certainly possible.
Well reading the document and going through some of the evidence regarding. I would say it’s not looking very promising for Apple.
Considering the finding was that apples fee was anticompetitive and based on limiting developers and maximizing revenue. While being wholly disconnected from IP( as I can discern from apples internal dialogues)
(CX-206.) Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.” (Id. at .2.) From Mr. Onak’s perspective, of the “execs” on the project, Mr. Schiller was at the top. (Feb. 2025 Tr. 1340:4–6 (Onak).) One employee further wrote, “to make your version even worse you could add the developer name rather than the app name.” (CX-206.4.) To that, another responded “ooh – keep going.”
Apple’s notes explain that “f we decided and had the ability to charge a commission, we believe there would be very little developer adoption of link-out, assuming a scenario where we would give a cost of payments discount at 3%.” (CX-859.33 (emphasis supplied).) Those same notes indicate that Apple planned to “[c]ome up with a couple of models in the spectrum of what we think the judge will accept” but to “tart with the minimum.”
Nope you are incorrect and there were no new laws created. Your analysis and comparison is intentionally flawed. The roots of the DMA to bust Apple started in 2015.
US law did not start in 2015 to bust google.
Well my point was it seems worse than I thought.
A distinction without a difference if the impact is effectively the same when making new legal precedent
The root is article 101 and 102. Younger than Steve Jobs by 2 years.
This is obtuse. Conflating clarification of existing laws in the US with the creation of new laws in the EU appearing to “protect” customers but really targeting Apple.
I looked at the results. Has the U.S. made a law with the same effect even if ”targeted ” wouldn’t change the relevant results.
It’s not targeting Apple. And it’s not to protect consumers
False equivalence. Google is now using non restricted apis. Apple is still obliged to give away its ip.
It’s targeting Apple under the guise of “protecting” consumers.
Sure. In most developed countries. Just not in the US.
I don't live in the United States, either.
The court ruled them as non restrictive aka steeling their APIs and making it public property as you lovely describe it.
APIs aren’t copyrighted here either. Apple sold it fair and square. They read the TOS and agreed to it as well as the can change in the future clause 🤷♂️
As it has been done in the court
Incorrect. Point to this consumer protection you speak of.
Yes at least there was due process to make it happen. No due process in the eu.
Apple has been targeted.
the due process was explicitly used that ruled APIs aren’t copyrighted in EU as well by the ECJ
You said:
No due process. Like patents. Sometimes they get overturned but it’s due process.
I stand by it.
It was a due process that ruled APIs not protected. And The case wasn’t limited.
CJEU Case C‑406/10 – SAS Institute v. World Programming (2012)
The Court ruled:
“Neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language or format of data files used in a computer program to exploit certain of its functions constitutes a form of expression protected by copyright.”
Translation:
An API’s functionality, command structure, and syntax are not protected by copyright under the Software Directive (Directive 2009/24/EC). Only the source code itself or a unique creative expression might be
In the EU, API interoperability is generally legal, and the burden is on the party asserting protection to prove it’s not just a functional interface.
A made up thing with zero data and zero information outside of ”vibes” it seems.
There's a difference in being able to reply to a message, and suddenly forcing apple to allow companies to copy paste all their code/features, which is not what I am asking for. On my Garmin forerunner 265, I can send preselected replies to texts on Android, be it pixel or Galaxy, but when I had an iphone I couldn't.
If that stops Apple from innovating, then maybe their innovation is more about being anti competitive.
Or maybe they don't trust that third parties won't abuse getting access to the content of every single notification that comes to the phone? Do we really think all users are going to understand that when clicking "agree" to "Display notifications on my Meta Glasses" that they are potentially giving Meta access to the content of every single notification that comes to their phone while they're wearing the glasses and that that information could be used to sell ads?
And since there is, as you helpfully point out, a competitor that allows you to do what you want, it's not an issue that rises to the level of "necessary government intervention into the business practices of a market participant with 28% market share."