Apple Makes Further Adjustments to Dating App Rules to Satisfy Dutch Regulatory Requirements

[Sophisticatednut]

How does one get past popularity vs regulation. I’d like to have another cable company on my block, but that’s regulated. Nothing except for seed money is stopping me from developing the next iPhone however. The iPhone is popular though, can my invention compete?

The company would be regulated to be forced to allow other providers to use their cables under a FRAND agreements. That what we do in EU. Essentialy banning the monopoly of the infrastructure consumers must use.

this forces companies to compete on function and services instead of consumer lock-in.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Supreme Court didn’t back anything relating to app stores, sideloading, fees/commissions, monopolies relating to apple, etc.

My opinion isn’t in the minority. Governments will do what they want.

No, but the Supreme Court ruled on APIs and it’s interpretation as IP. and Said APIs are open source and not legally lable to license it.

aka this IP you’re talking about for side-loading is not protected.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

or tell me what’s your interpretation of this ruling?

Edit: APIs are 100% faire use

 

[mrochester]

The company would be regulated to be forced to allow other providers to use their cables under a FRAND agreements. That what we do in EU. Essentialy banning the monopoly of the infrastructure consumers must use.

this forces companies to compete on function and services instead of consumer lock-in.

FRAND only works for standards essential patents surely?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

FRAND only works for standards essential patents.

FRAND is the acronym for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. this works for infrastructure as well.

you can call it whatever you want but this is the reality.

can cable companies prevent competition from using their infrastructure? Nope

can car manufacturers prevent dealerships from selling competitor? Nope

can car manufacturers prevent the sale of bootleg parts with difrent brand? Nope
etc etc

in EU, not USA.

 

[I7guy]

No, but the Supreme Court ruled on APIs and it’s interpretation as IP. and Said APIs are open source and not legally lable to license it.

aka this IP you’re talking about for side-loading is not protected.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

or tell me what’s your interpretation of this ruling?

Edit: APIs are 100% faire use

Jail breaking isn’t protected but apple is not obliged to help you. The same with sideloading. But forcing companies to open up their infrastructure and loose revenue is nothing more than government trampling in ip rights and playing Robin Hood.

 

[bousozoku]

It's becoming clear Tim Cook should no longer be leading Apple. The writing is on the wall with regards to regulatory pressures coming from the EU, Japan, United States, UK, etc... Apple should be working toward compliance in the best, most Apple way possible. These antics just increase the risk of regulatory pressures that may actually hurt the company. He's sacrificing short term gains for long term stability.

Apple should have more people in each country to address location-specific requirements, but this has been a shortcoming for more than 20 years. The company has enough money to have people available to recognise situations before they occur.

 

[I7guy]

The company would be regulated to be forced to allow other providers to use their cables under a FRAND agreements. That what we do in EU. Essentialy banning the monopoly of the infrastructure consumers must use.

this forces companies to compete on function and services instead of consumer lock-in.

It’s real easy to compete and function and services, when you get to use your competition’s services because of government regulation. The competition essentially leeches off the prior art and innovation.

 

[BC2009]

I still don’t understand why Dutch authorities are so focussed on dating apps.

From what I understand the politicians who cheat on their wives cannot do it using a dating app because their wife will see the charge on their family-shared credit card for the Apple ID. Somebody from Netherlands claimed this was the case a while back on a previous story. I had no idea why dating apps were so special to them until I heard this.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Jail breaking isn’t protected but apple is not obliged to help you. The same with sideloading. But forcing companies to open up their infrastructure and loose revenue is nothing more than government trampling in ip rights and playing Robin Hood.

well jailbreakign is protected as fair use. apple cant sue you for it. So it's a legal protected action.

It’s real easy to compete and function and services, when you get to use your competition’s services because of government regulation. The competition essentially leeches off the prior art and innovation.

thats the hardest thign to compete on. what the governmetn is doing is providing the infrastructure as a public domain. everyone still makes theri own services and functions.

Zero services is given away for free by force. APIs aren't a service. people just are free to use APIs with custom code however they want. Just as you can build a door frame, I still can put whatever kind of door I want instead of a door produced by you.

you can patent the door frame but you cant patent the idea of a thin fitting the frame. and close to the entire developer community cheared when APIs was deemed fair use, as it would esentialy kill the internet as we know it if APIs was copyrightable.

 

[I7guy]

well jailbreakign is protected as fair use. apple cant sue you for it. So it's a legal protected action.

Yes, you can jailbreak but Apple isn’t legally obligated to help you, but the can hardened their operating system and hardware.

thats the hardest thign to compete on. what the governmetn is doing is providing the infrastructure as a public domain. everyone still makes theri own services and functions.

Zero services is given away for free by force. APIs aren't a service. people just are free to use APIs with custom code however they want. Just as you can build a door frame, I still can put whatever kind of door I want instead of a door produced by you.

you can patent the door frame but you cant patent the idea of a thin fitting the frame. and close to the entire developer community cheared when APIs was deemed fair use, as it would esentialy kill the internet as we know it if APIs was copyrightable.

What government is doing is turning tech into public utilities, which they are not.

 

[visualseed]

No, but the Supreme Court ruled on APIs and it’s interpretation as IP. and Said APIs are open source and not legally lable to license it.

aka this IP you’re talking about for side-loading is not protected.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

or tell me what’s your interpretation of this ruling?

Edit: APIs are 100% faire use

SCOTUS did not rule that APIs were open source. They ruled that Google's specific implementation of the JAVA APIs was protected under the "fair use" exception to US copyright law because they met 4 specific criteria, 1.) The specific APIs were more utilitarian than creative works. 2.) Google did not copy a substantial number of them (relative to the whole) for their implantation. 3.) Google's use was transformative and not replicative. 4.) Google's use of the Java APIs did not have material impact on Oracle's Java business as Java was already a minor play in the mobile software market before the rise of Android. Google did not need to meet all the criteria, but because the case was decided on the grounds of "fair use" and not the blanket eligibility of copyright it means that APIs are very much still considered IP and there will be many future lawsuits aimed to protect them.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

SCOTUS did not rule that APIs were open source. They ruled that Google's specific implementation of the JAVA APIs was protected under the "fair use" exception to US copyright law because they met 4 specific criteria, 1.) The specific APIs were more utilitarian than creative works. 2.) Google did not copy a substantial number of them (relative to the whole) for their implantation. 3.) Google's use was transformative and not replicative. 4.) Google's use of the Java APIs did not have material impact on Oracle's Java business as Java was already a minor play in the mobile software market before the rise of Android. Google did not need to meet all the criteria, but because the case was decided on the grounds of "fair use" and not the blanket eligibility of copyright it means that APIs are very much still considered IP and there will be many future lawsuits aimed to protect them.

Important factor is google user 0.4% of javas documented API interactive string code, because there was no other way to write the code. The rest was self made to interact with oracles API. APIs doesn’t need to be copied to be interacted with

100% of all APIs on the planet is utilitarian. They by design can’t be creative as described in the below quote from the court.

The copied lines are part of a tool called an Application Pro- gramming Interface (API). An API allows programmers to call upon prewritten computing tasks for use in their own programs.

Google’s copying of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code that were needed to allow programmers to put their ac- crued talents to work in a new and transformative program, was a fair use of that material as a matter of law. Pp. 11–36

And as you can see here, developers won’t copy any code. Google did for reusing a small code base you couldn’t reasonably do any other way

This case implicates two of the limits in the current Copyright Act. First, the Act provides that copyright protection cannot extend to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, princi- ple, or discovery . . . .” 17 U. S. C. §102(b). Second, the Act provides that a copyright holder may not prevent another person from making a “fair use” of a copyrighted work. §107. Google’s petition asks the Court to apply both provisions to the copying at issue here

This is how you interact with APIs. No code is copied if it already exists on the device, you can ether copy the same code Apple uses or write your own

The nature of the work at issue favors fair use. The copied lines of code are part of a “user interface” that provides a way for pro- grammers to access prewritten computer code through the use of sim- ple commands. As a result, this code is different from many other types of code, such as the code that actually instructs the computer to execute a task. As part of an interface, the copied lines are inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas (the overall organization of the API) and the creation of new creative expression (the code inde- pendently written by Google). Unlike many other computer programs, the value of the copied lines is in significant part derived from the in- vestment of users (here computer programmers) who have learned the API’s system. Given these differences, application of fair use here is unlikely to undermine the general copyright protection that Congress provided for computer programs. Pp. 21–24.

This as I said is 100% of all APIs

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yes, you can jailbreak but Apple isn’t legally obligated to help you, but the can hardened their operating system and hardware.

True that, unless them preventing it’s use harms the market and user base more. Such as your internet provider prevents other service providers from offering you competitive deals instead of a forced monopoly to serve their own monetary interests. If you don’t like it you wouldn’t have to pay a different company to draw new cables for you for hundred if not hundreds of thousands of dollars just to pay 5$ less on your internet and get a different service.

What government is doing is turning tech into public utilities, which they are not.

Well it could be argued when they control so much of our private life and are taking more control by the day, perhaps it’s in the public interests for them to have public utility status, just as with other services that once upon a time was only privately owned.

Do we want to have harmful effects for 10-20 years before before it’s controlled and looked at? Should we break the train before we speed down the curve and risk irreparable damages? It’s quite a blurry line that will be drawn arbitrarily. Perhaps companies should draw this line themselves before the government does an over correction

 

[I7guy]

True that, unless them preventing it’s use harms the market and user base more.

In would like to see the notion defended, anywhere that less security is better.

Such as your internet provider prevents other service providers from offering you competitive deals instead of a forced monopoly to serve their own monetary interests.

That’s happening now.

If you don’t like it you wouldn’t have to pay a different company to draw new cables for you for hundred if not hundreds of thousands of dollars just to pay 5$ less on your internet and get a different service.

I wish I could afford to have another company lay cables for my house.

Well it could be argued when they control so much of our private life and are taking more control by the day, perhaps it’s in the public interests for them to have public utility status, just as with other services that once upon a time was only privately owned.

Yes, cable companies are dumb pipes. Apple, google not so much.

Do we want to have harmful effects for 10-20 years before before it’s controlled and looked at?

Yes, let this play out in the marketplace.

Should we break the train before we speed down the curve and risk irreparable damages?

Yes, let this play out in the marketplace.

It’s quite a blurry line that will be drawn arbitrarily. Perhaps companies should draw this line themselves before the government does an over correction

Government chooses what to get involved in, often the wrong things at the wrong times. There is a way however for citizens to make known it’s wishes.

 

[visualseed]

Important factor is google user 0.4% of javas documented API interactive string code, because there was no other way to write the code. The rest was self made to interact with oracles API. APIs doesn’t need to be copied to be interacted with

100% of all APIs on the planet is utilitarian. They by design can’t be creative as described in the below quote from the court.




And as you can see here, developers won’t copy any code. Google did for reusing a small code base you couldn’t reasonably do any other way

This is how you interact with APIs. No code is copied if it already exists on the device, you can ether copy the same code Apple uses or write your own

This as I said is 100% of all APIs

Simply not being creative does not in itself make them non-IP or not legally protectable. US copyright and patent law has a rich history of protecting common information if the presentation of the information itself is what creates the value. This is why you just can't copy word-for-word other people's directories and distribute them freely. Again, the SCOUTS ruling you cited resorted to a "fair use" exception to copyright law, not an invalidation of the copyright-ability of APIs.

This ruling also does nothing to open closed systems as it does not rule that APIs are not IP and it does not mean they can't be legally licensed or restricted. All this ruling did was allow them to be mimicked for interoperability on other systems. The inverse of what Google did would be using APIs to access functionality on a closed system. e.g. making Android apps work on a Java-base mobile OS distributed by Oracle which would have been a violation of legally enforceable licensing terms. Same would be true of anyone side-loading an app on iOS that took advantage of Apple's API to access functionality in an attempt to circumvent Apple's TOS and other rights to make derivative works.

Just because you know the secret door knock to the speakeasy and the bouncer will open the door for you does not mean you are entitled to free drinks at the bar. It only means that you can open your own speakeasy and allow your patrons to use the same "secret" knock.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I don't care whether they operate in the EU or not, I just recognise that the scenario you're proposing is ridiculous. It's about as likely as it is for the EU to pass a law saying it's okay to hunt Apple employees with bows — technically could happen, but we all know that it's not going to.

The proposed rules are attempting to fundamentally change how Apple does business in the EU. Such that, it’s possible that Apple finds themselves unable to operate under the NEW rules. Apple may have to move on and they’ll be adversely impacted, surely, but Apple will live on long after these rules have been implemented.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Not at all the forbid the goods, not the company. They can’t trade in monkey brains for all they care as long as these goods doesn’t enter EU.

If the company is being set up to import certain endangered animals INTO the EU, that company will be rejected.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Please provide the regulations that will do this considering the gate keeper monicker doesn’t cover small companies. The DMA and DSA only cover bigger companies. Samsung wouldn’t for example wouldn’t be covered under it

And, for a company to challenge Apple and Google with an innovative new product, they would end up being a:
a. small company, OR
b. large company ?

And, when they cross the threshold from small to large, the new rules that kick in would prevent them from focusing on growth. They may even opt to stay small companies to enjoy those rules. Thus, Apple and Google remains the defacto winners in the EU.

Nobody is saying it’s good. Just as long as it’s under fair terms it’s okey as that’s what consumers have chosen. Android is dominant because google used anti competitive practices that demented it’s dominance. Interoperability make sit easy for small companies to compete with bigger players as they don’t need to create their own gated community and other can’t stop them at the gates.

Android is STILL dominant. And, will REMAIN dominant because there’s no benefit to any company (other than Apple, as they’re already delivering their own OS) doing anything other than “support google’s OS”. And, this is the state, clearly, that the EU would like to remain in place indefinitely. (Or, even just Android, no iOS)

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That’s up to the market. Duopolies and monopoly isn’t an illegal thing and not considered bad as long as no anti competitive activity is happening.

Well, I mean, the market decided what it wanted was a bunch of Android devices and one non-Android device. So everything’s up to the market except for the things that the EU decides they don’t want to be up to the market.

Can you prove this?

The big players currently delivering OS’s are Apple and Google. Under the proposed regulations, the NEW big players delivering OS’s will be… Apple and Google. If the point was REALLY to increase competition, more OS vendors would be the result. Instead, the EU is enshrining Apple and Google as the defacto providers of OS’s for smartphones.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple should have more people in each country to address location-specific requirements, but this has been a shortcoming for more than 20 years. The company has enough money to have people available to recognise situations before they occur.

If Apple is materially harmed, what’s the downside? Other companies will step in to replace them. I’m pretty sure that Google is in the most advantageous position. If it’s all about the consumer, the consumer will be happy to no longer have the overbearing Apple as a choice in the region.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

If the company is being set up to import certain endangered animals INTO the EU, that company will be rejected.

If the company is being set up to import certain endangered animals INTO NOT the EU market, it will continue doing business unimpeded. if Nestle setts up a buisness importing endangered animals in to Market X it will be punished as an EU company.

But if Kellogg's an American company is importing endangered animals making cornflakes with RINO shavings in china, it will still be allowed to sell cornflakes without the banned substance in EU un impeded as it's not their juristiction

And, for a company to challenge Apple and Google with an innovative new product, they would end up being a:
a. small company, OR
b. large company ?

a smaller company is more likely to produce the next new thing as Gatekeepers arent allowed to buy up smaller rivals without approval first

And, when they cross the threshold from small to large, the new rules that kick in would prevent them from focusing on growth. They may even opt to stay small companies to enjoy those rules. Thus, Apple and Google remains the defacto winners in the EU.

the threshold from small to large is EXTREMELY massive. Samsung with a 32% market share isn't covered under the DMA as they fail other criterias, and can follow onas normal.

Android is STILL dominant. And, will REMAIN dominant because there’s no benefit to any company (other than Apple, as they’re already delivering their own OS) doing anything other than “support google’s OS”. And, this is the state, clearly, that the EU would like to remain in place indefinitely. (Or, even just Android, no iOS)

Not at all, until recently Samsung, Lg, Huawei, Xiaomi, Sony etc was legally prevented from providing competing OSs on their mobile phones, they where LEGALY prevented from providing competing software without including google services as standard, google bribed and payed companies to not use competing solutions etc etc. UNTILL EU court have told them to stop, they have lostin every level of the process, untill the final boss so to say

google have obviously appealed them and i belive they are for review in the EUCOJ, and will rack up a in total 15 bioolion Euro fine and immediate stopping of their practices.

Well, I mean, the market decided what it wanted was a bunch of Android devices and one non-Android device. So everything’s up to the market except for the things that the EU decides they don’t want to be up to the market.

sure, but at some level the market cant decide if the company have entrenched themselves, such as being the gate keeper. telecom companies are such monopolies and was forced to open up.
train companies was forced to open up and allow competing trains to use their tracks, car dealerships have been given the right to sell whatever they want without prejudice etc etc.

The big players currently delivering OS’s are Apple and Google. Under the proposed regulations, the NEW big players delivering OS’s will be… Apple and Google. If the point was REALLY to increase competition, more OS vendors would be the result. Instead, the EU is enshrining Apple and Google as the defacto providers of OS’s for smartphones.

well under the new ruling is to create a fairer market to enable competition, not to have more options. EU dont care if it's one company or a hundred different companies eiyh hundreds of difrent operating systems.

it's about the sneaky ways that make it unviable to compete on a level playing ground on only features, function, quality and service provided.

if there came a new apple, they should be able to outcompete on these merrits only, and not gatekeeping and ensnarement of end users.

example how car dealerships are done in the USA is illegal, a state mandatign you cant sell directly to consumers are completly illegal and seen as anti competetive.


EU wants to provide choices to consumers.
USA wants to dictate the choices a company can make irrespective of consumer interests.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Not at all the forbid the goods, not the company. They can’t trade in monkey brains for all they care as long as these goods doesn’t enter EU.

If the company is being set up in the EU to import certain endangered animals INTO the EU, that company will be rejected. I believe it’s understood that the EU does not have any control over companies that do not want to do business in the EU.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

the threshold from small to large is EXTREMELY massive. Samsung with a 32% market share isn't covered under the DMA as they fail other criterias, and can follow onas normal.

And… when they get larger they will be exempt from the rules or have to follow them?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The big players currently delivering OS’s are Apple and Google. Under the proposed regulations, the NEW big players delivering OS’s will be… Apple and Google. If the point was REALLY to increase competition, more OS vendors would be the result. Instead, the EU is enshrining Apple and Google as the defacto providers of OS’s for smartphones.

the DMA mandates that.
GOOGLE and APPLE:

1. allow equal competition of included services.
2. allow the side stepping of their gardens
3. allow the installation of whatever software you want
4. prevent the purchase of a small company without review to poeatch their tecnology or remove competition.
5. other companies can sell custom Android without google having a say.
6. companies can fork android without google doing anything or discriminating

and mostly the number Of Operating systems on the market aren't something they care to address, only to remove their entrenchment advantage, and allow the market to decide if ios and android will go the way of windows phone os purely on it's quality and service, not the fact they had a bigger user base and is trying to gate keep everyone to make it as hostile and unnapealing as possible for anyone to switch in the first place.

is WebKit safari/Blink engine chrome not providing a good product, the users should easily replace it with something else seamlessly and minimum effort.

Apple/google Maps are becoming terrible and stagnant? replace it with a competitor seamlessly

apple/google calendar is becoming terrible bloatware? Replace it with a competitor seamlessly.

You don't use Google/apple messenger or missing features? Replace it with a competitor seamlessly.
the calculator, compass, notes, clock, weather, etc, etc becoming clunky or missing(or even loosing features) replace it with a competitor seamlessly...

if it's iOS, android, windows or random Linux distro etc. have little to no importance, and only google is of violation for anti competetive rules when it comes to the distribution of Androud.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Not at all, until recently Samsung, Lg, Huawei, Xiaomi, Sony etc was legally prevented from providing competing OSs on their mobile phones, they where LEGALY prevented from providing competing software without including google services as standard, google bribed and payed companies to not use competing solutions etc etc. UNTILL EU court have told them to stop, they have lostin every level of the process, untill the final boss so to say

And now we have……….. Android and iOS. And, next year, in the EU, we will have Android as a major OS provider, iOS as a minor OS provider.

sure, but at some level the market cant decide if the company have entrenched themselves, such as being the gate keeper. telecom companies are such monopolies and was forced to open up.
train companies was forced to open up and allow competing trains to use their tracks, car dealerships have been given the right to sell whatever they want without prejudice etc etc.

So, the market can decide for small companies but not large companies. When too many people like one product, well the EU’s gotta step in and make sure that the market doesn’t have it’s say!

They have the right to sell whatever they want without prejudice UNLESS they reach a certain size

well under the new ruling is to create a fairer market to enable competition, not to have more options. EU dont care if it's one company or a hundred different companies eiyh hundreds of difrent operating systems.

So, interoperability is NOT important then? Wouldn’t this just fracture the market and encourage even more lock-ins?

That would just fracture the market and encourage even more lock-ins. This has explicitly been banned, hence why google no longer can prevent phone manufacturers to only use their OS and no other competitive choices.

And this is the value of interoperability as it breaks the lock-in effect.

EU wants to provide choices to consumers.

EU provides the same choices to consumers as the US. In five years… the same choices will be provided.