The APIs are sold as part of the device, the end user has already paid for them.
The users don't belong to Apple.
If Apple wants to charge for their dev tools they can, but that is really all I think they can legally charge for in the EU, I think a strong case could be made by devs that Apple cannot restrict access to APIs that already exist on device.
That is only true in the US, furthermore, Apple can write whatever it wants in the EULA it doesn't make it legally enforceable.
As an additional note, as I said, even in the US the software and APIs were already licensed to the end user, and Apple is attempting to charge developers for yet another license to something that has already been licensed.
Thirdly, the way software licenses work in the US is actively consumer and end user hostile and should be fought against not reinforced.
Finally, my point was that the IP ownership was not being undermined as companies are still able to charge for their IP however my argument was that Apple was trying to double charge for it.
That certainly is an interesting interpretation. Would render almost all copyright and intellectual property law null and void, at least here in the US.
Um - I don't think you have any idea how any of this actually works. Please read the End User License agreement and the Developer License agreement. Apple isn't actually selling you a copy of the software, they are giving you a license to use their software.
It seems more you’re completely unaware how APIs work and how they are connected to copyright. I recommend you to read the legal case on Google Inc v oracle and your own supreme court ruling.
Here’s a comprehensive easy analogue.
---
Imagine an app as a new toy in a child's playroom (the iPhone running iOS). The playroom (iOS) is filled with various built-in play stations and tools (APIs) such as a drawing station, a building block area, and a music corner. These play stations are designed by the playroom’s creator (Apple) to be used by all the toy makers (developers) who bring new toys (apps) to the playroom.
### Existing Infrastructure and Innovation
The playroom is already equipped with these essential tools and stations so that toy makers don’t need to build their own from scratch. When a toy maker creates a new toy, they design it to work with these existing play stations. For example, a toy that lets the child draw pictures will use the playroom's drawing station, and a toy that plays music will use the music corner.
If toy makers had to build their own drawing stations and music corners, it would be time-consuming and costly. This would discourage many toy makers, especially smaller ones, from creating new toys. Similarly, if they had to pay extra just to use these built-in features, it would add a financial burden that could also stifle innovation. The child (user) would end up with fewer and less innovative toys to play with, leading to a poorer experience.
### Double Charging and User Experience
The child’s parents (users who buy the iPhone) have already paid for the playroom (iOS) and its facilities (APIs). Charging toy makers additional fees to use these facilities would be like charging twice for the same thing. This doesn’t make sense when the whole point of the playroom is to have all these features available for everyone to use, ensuring that the child (user) has a rich and enjoyable experience.
### Ecosystem Benefit
A playroom filled with a variety of interesting and high-quality toys is more attractive to children. The same goes for an operating system with a diverse range of apps. By providing these built-in play stations (APIs) for free, the playroom’s creator (Apple) encourages toy makers (developers) to create more and better toys (apps), making the playroom (iOS) more appealing to children (users). This benefits everyone involved: the playroom attracts more children, toy makers get more opportunities to showcase their toys, and children enjoy a wider selection of fun activities.
### The Absurdity of Copyrighting APIs
Imagine if the playroom’s creator tried to copyright the drawing station or the music corner. This would mean that any toy maker wanting to create a toy that interacts with these features would need to get permission and potentially pay a fee. This is akin to trying to copyright the concept of a drawing board or building blocks, which are basic tools that everyone expects to be able to use.
Copyright is meant to protect creative works, not functional tools. Applying copyright to APIs would be an overreach, creating unnecessary legal and financial barriers. It would be like one company owning all the rights to every kind of drawing board or building block set, forcing everyone else to either pay up or be unable to create new toys.
### Market Monopoly and Negative Impact on Users
If Apple could copyright its APIs, it would create a monopoly over basic functionalities needed by every developer. This would give Apple undue control over the entire app ecosystem, allowing it to dictate terms and potentially exploit developers and users. The result would be fewer toys (apps) available and higher costs, ultimately making the playroom (iOS) less enjoyable for the child (user).
---
In summary, APIs are like essential play stations in a playroom that toy makers use to create new toys. Charging extra fees or trying to copyright these APIs would be absurd because it would hinder creativity, innovation, and collaboration, misapply legal protections, create monopolistic control, and negatively impact the end users who rely on a diverse and vibrant ecosystem of apps. The best approach is to keep these fundamental tools freely available, ensuring a rich and enjoyable experience for everyone involved.
