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

[Unregistered 4U]

and mostly the number Of Operating systems on the market aren't something they care to address

Ah, so you agree that the smartphone OS’s available in the EU in the future will continue to be nothing more than iOS and Android. Got it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

this is not even related to what im arguing or how the law works

1. Eu company wants to import illgal substem x in to EU= stopped
2. Eu company wants to export illegal(weed, drugs etc) stuff out from EU= Allowed
3. EU company wants to sell illegal goods x from country Y outside of EU to country Y1= allowed
4. EU company wants to sell endangered goods x from country Y outside of EU to country Y1= stopped(international agreements)
5. company is being set up in the EU to import certain endangered animals INTO the EU= allowed, the goods will be confiscated for being illegal to sell in EU.
6. trade in seal(endangered animal) products sets have harmonized rules for placing seal products on the EU market

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

Samsung is bigger than apple in EU in both smartphone sales, user base and variety of products. And they aren't impacted. Being large isn't illegal or regulated. samsung= 32% apple 31%

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

we will have difrent forks of Android.

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

Size have zero relevance in the law, only market influence.

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

Interoperability is very important, that comes in the Digital service act. OSes aren't interoperable

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

We will likely have more choices unless the US passes any bill any time soon.

Ah, so you agree that the smartphone OS’s available in the EU in the future will continue to be nothing more than iOS and Android. Got it.

no, it will likely be some kind of Chinese/korean OS will emerge. Just how Google Chrome today is completely different from WebKit safari, it started as a fork and was interoperable, and now dominates and have deviated so much they are no longer compatible

Fuchsia OS could replace Android, and Samsung seems to be willing to ditch Android in favor of it, and will run a Rosetta like feature, so you can run Android apps on it.

​

 

[Sophisticatednut]

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.

no information is presented.

the ruling covers two legal questions:
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) "This is a copyright question"

. Second, the Act provides
that a copyright holder may not prevent another person from making
a “fair use” of a copyrighted work. "This is a fair use question"

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.

you quite literally misunderstood how Application processing interfaces (APIs) work. APIs aren't mimicked or copied, the API is provided by Oracle, then someone else writes a custom code that interacts with the API to get system calls done.

Mimicking s all tehat google and 100% of developers do.

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.

This is exactly what google did. And why Oracle sued Google. for not paying a license to connect to their Application processing interface. and google copied 0.4% of their API code base

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.

this is exactly what google did. google used Oracles APIs without consent, but with their own code.
Google gave developers the literal phone book or cheat code book to the bar without paying to use oracles book of proprietary code.


What is an API? The Federal Circuit described an API
as a tool that “allow programmers to use . . . prewritten
code to build certain functions into their own programs, ra-
ther than write their own code to perform those functions

Or read page 3-8 at a minimum