Apple Hit With Lawsuit From App Store Developer Over Copycat Apps

[09872738]

you absolutely can

No, you can‘t. Basically what you can patent is a technical concept. But not the app, that is implementation, itself. Its copyrighted, but very little keeps a copycat from reimplementing an app.
Thus you are protected from code theft, but that’s mostly it.

There are some differences depending on location - Europe‘s got a different legislation than to the US, for example - but basically the said above also holds in the US

 

[hot-gril]

you absolutely can

Whatever the legal definitions are, what happened to Snapchat should say enough about the reality. Facebook tried to buy, Snapchat refused, Facebook copied every single feature into Instagram. And with Zuck, I can believe it was retaliation.

 

[Rob_2811]

You can’t sue somebody just because there’s no proof they aren’t out to get you. You need proof even to file a complaint - lawsuits aren’t fishing expeditions.

I'm assuming the deveoper has documented their dealings with developer relations in support of some of the claims they have made.

My point isn't particularly whether or not this suit has merit more that some of the claims are very close to those that prompted the antitrust investigations.

If Apple is weaponising App Review against competing apps and services, as seems to be alledged here, regulators should be looking very closely at that.

 

[cmaier]

I'm assuming the deveoper has documented their dealings with developer relations in support of some of the claims they have made.

My point isn't particularly whether or not this suit has merit more that some of the claims are very close to those that prompted the antitrust investigations.

If Apple is weaponising App Review against competing apps and services, as seems to be alledged here, regulators should be looking very closely at that.

You can assume what you want, but the complaint doesn’t reference any such evidence.

And none of the antitrust investigations have indicated that a topic of the investigation is “apple is treating us bad so that we will be forced to sell our app to them.”

As for your last sentence, it’s the worst kind of argument. “If apple is murdering young babies to drink their blood, as alleged on reddit, regulators should be looking very closely at that.”

Use common sense. Read critically. Notice where there is no evidence for allegations, and don’t give them the benefit of the doubt when they allege wild things without any such evidence.

 

[Rob_2811]

Why would and who’d regulate it? Non starter!

The solution was always there since the beginning, but the problem became evident when developers got impatient with the vetting process! Patience is truly virtue.

I truly wonder would sue google as well considering this copy cat thing is everywhere.

I also have a solution for you cry baby developers … patent your software ideas. Oh wait, that process would take too long and you have no patience!

Since you brought Google into the conversation you might want to read up on the regulatory action already taken against them in Europe

Antitrust cases against Google by the European Union - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[I7guy]

No proof doesn't = not happening, prescisely why the App Store needs regulating.

Who is going to regulate the admission of copycat and deceptive apps, if there is no central authority regulating the app store? This is precisely why the app store needs regulating, by Apple and Apple needs full control over the app store without government interference.

 

[I7guy]

This is why Apple's claim that they've created millions of jobs is rubbish because only a small percentage of app developers even break even. The rest are better off pursuing something else. Apple is liable for false advertisement if they keep pushing that narrative.

Sounds to me like you would be a perfect person to start a class action lawsuit on behalf of millions of developers who would endless thank you, as when the lawsuit wins, they could go back to their business and now rake in.....$0.

 

[Rob_2811]

You can assume what you want, but the complaint doesn’t reference any such evidence.

And none of the antitrust investigations have indicated that a topic of the investigation is “apple is treating us bad so that we will be forced to sell our app to them.”

Great throw the suit out that isn't really the issue. A lawsuit won't fix the problem anyway.

The antitrust complaints have all referenced Apple weaponsing App Review against competing Apps and Services. Spin it however you like.

Who is going to regulate the admission of copycat and deceptive apps, if there is no central authority regulating the app store? This is precisely why the app store needs regulating, by Apple and Apple needs full control over the app store without government interference.

Who cares about copycat apps. Apple using app review against competiors (again) is the story here.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

Who cares about copycat apps. Apple using app review against competiors (again) is the story here.

We will find out what the real store is, if and when this goes to trial. Almost anything can be alleged in a complaint, doesn't mean it's true or the plaintiff will win. So yeah, I am looking forward to this proceeding to trial.

 

[jarman92]

You are mistaking the pleading burden with the ethical burden.

In federal court, you still have to abide by FRCP 11(b):

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

Also, the PLEADING standards are completely different. The federal courts have notice pleading, which is a very easy standard to meet. That’s not true of california, where you are required to plead “ultimate facts.”

...what? None of that really made any sense but I'll try to tease it apart. FRCP 11 is an extremely low bar and is met in nearly every single case. The courts haven't even imposed Rule 11 sanctions on Rudy Giuliani for his insane and blatantly frivolous election lawsuits. This suit clearly passes Rule 11.

I'm not at all sure where you got that I'm "mistaking the pleading burden with the ethical burden." As I said, the only standard that complaints in federal court need to meet is "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." This suit also meets that standard. And I'm not a CA attorney, but a quick search shows that the pleading standard in CA is actually lower than the federal.

 

[cmaier]

...what? None of that really made any sense but I'll try to tease it apart. FRCP 11 is an extremely low bar and is met in nearly every single case. The courts haven't even imposed Rule 11 sanctions on Rudy Giuliani for his insane and blatantly frivolous election lawsuits. This suit clearly passes Rule 11.

I'm not at all sure where you got that I'm "mistaking the pleading burden with the ethical burden." As I said, the only standard that complaints in federal court need to meet is "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." This suit also meets that standard. And I'm not a CA attorney, but a quick search shows that the pleading standard in CA is actually lower than the federal.

How can you know this suit clearly passes rule 11? For example, what factual basis does the plaintiff have to allege that Apple intentionally allowed scam apps to compete with his app? Even one single fact?

And federal notice pleading is CERTAINLY a lower standard than california. CCCP 425.10(a) - you need a statement of facts that constitute the action. FRCP 8(a)(2) merely requires a “statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” a far lower standard.

As for where i got the “you’re mistaking the burden” thing, it’s because I was talking about ethical obligations and you responded by citing the federal notice pleading standard, which has nothing to do with that.

 

[Apple_Robert]

His allegations read like bitter feelings, and it looks like he is throwing a lot of allegations at the proverbial wall hoping something sticks.

I predict his vague lawsuit fails.

 

[bobbie424242]

"Buuuuuuuut, it's Apple Store !!! It can do what it wants!"

That developer should be indefinitely grateful to Apple and sell it its fist born for 1$.

 

[jarman92]

How can you know this suit clearly passes rule 11? For example, what factual basis does the plaintiff have to allege that Apple intentionally allowed scam apps to compete with his app? Even one single fact?

And federal notice pleading is CERTAINLY a lower standard than california. CCCP 425.10(a) - you need a statement of facts that constitute the action. FRCP 8(a)(2) merely requires a “statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” a far lower standard.

As for where i got the “you’re mistaking the burden” thing, it’s because I was talking about ethical obligations and you responded by citing the federal notice pleading standard, which has nothing to do with that.

Because everything passes Rule 11. As long as it isn't abundantly clear that the suit was filed to harass a party or waste the court's time, it is assumed that the suit is nonfrivolous. In general, courts favor litigation and will bend over backwards to give claimants the benefit of the doubt. In this case, I don't think much effort is needed to see that the claim has enough merit to proceed to trial.

You're reading far too much into that section of the CA rules. To say that a complaint must contain "a statement of facts that constitute the cause of action" is merely saying that the complaint must actually say what the suit is about. As in I can't sue you by filing a complaint that says "I'm suing cmaier because I don't like him." That's such a low standard that I hesitate to call it a "standard" at all. A CA defendant can't even file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; they must file a demurrer with the court and allow the claimant to amend their complaint.

As for the federal pleading standard, you can't just look at the FRCP; you also need to read the Twombly and Iqbal SCOTUS decisions, which contain the most current interpretation of the rules (SCOTUS trumps FRCP).

 

[Suckfest 9001]

Honestly I don’t see how apple could possibly be expected to police every single app in its giant collection. Every marketplace that lists user submitted content will suffer from scams frequently and aggressively.

 

[Scotticus]

Hoping Apple loses this case and gets its **** together. What's the point of a walled garden if it's full of scammy crap?

 

[Tech198]

What about that old saying "This stuff is hard" , Doesn't fly anymore?

And this is Only in a walled garden lol.... its worse outside...

 

[sinoka56]

Honestly I don’t see how apple could possibly be expected to police every single app in its giant collection. Every marketplace that lists user submitted content will suffer from scams frequently and aggressively.

Then Apple shouldn't advertise it as such. 😂

 

[dwaite]

I don’t think it’s so much the idea that Apple MUST remove copy cats but they market the idea that a small developer can enjoy success with the help of apple’s infrastructure. It’s hard to achieve any amount of real success past breaking even when an app we work hard on gets ripped off by some scam Indian firm. It’s frustrating for me and kills initiative and drive to continue.

Then you file a DCMA request, patent lawsuit, injunction. Or are people insisting Apple act as if it has legal jurisdiction?

 

[dwaite]

You can patent something that the app does, if that thing is novel and non-obvious, and if the subject matter is something more than an abstract process. Few apps are going to meet all those requirements.

You can design patent the look and feel of apps.

 

[09872738]

You can design patent the look and feel of apps.

Good luck with that following Apples guidlines and using Xcode.
Plus: Indie devs rarely have the funds and/or financial stamina law suits require. Plus Indie devs usually are developers and designers lacking time and skills to fight something like this through.

I certainly would rather pull my apps from the store than go through all the hassle with little chance of a positive outcome.
My apps are all free, so no a big deal for me. If I had to make a living from them I‘d probably be massively ****** off as well

 

[Suckfest 9001]

Then Apple shouldn't advertise it as such. 😂

Show me where Apple claims perfect 100% coverage and then when you’re done with that show me evidence of a single storefront of its size that has 0 scam apps 😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

[Rob_2811]

Honestly I don’t see how apple could possibly be expected to police every single app in its giant collection. Every marketplace that lists user submitted content will suffer from scams frequently and aggressively.

True but they never seem to miss a discrepancy in a Spotify update or someone trying to circumvent IAP.

It's almost as if App Review is largely in place to protect Apples commercial interests rather than to protect consumers.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

True but they never seem to miss a discrepancy in a Spotify update or someone trying to circumvent IAP.

It's almost as if App Review is largely in place to protect Apples commercial interests rather than to protect consumers.

Because that’s an app that’s been downloaded tens of million times and has been basically permanently topping the Music apps charts for years… how’s that a valid comparison to some watch keyboard app lol

Apple is doing exactly what one would expect them to do - they dedicate more resources towards app updates that are going out to millions of users. Versus this watch app which has probably been downloaded like a few thousand times if that

 

[Rob_2811]

Because that’s an app that’s been downloaded tens of million times and has been basically permanently topping the Music apps charts for years… how’s that a valid comparison to some watch keyboard app lol

So it gets reviewed differently? The number of downloads the app has had shouldn't make any difference to the way the rules are applied.

Apple have publically claimed that the App Store is a level playing field

Phil Schiller:

“One of the things we came up with is, we’re going to treat all apps in the App Store the same - one set of rules for everybody, no special deals, no special terms, no special code, everything applies to all developers the same. That was not the case in PC software. Nobody thought like that. It was a complete flip around of how the whole system was going to work,”