Cydia Files Appeal in Higher Court in Legal Battle Against Apple

[webkit]

Not quite. Microsoft had market power in the desktop OS market where they leveraged their dominance of that market to force their partners to give them preference in the browser market.

Apple doesn't participate in a "mobile OS market". It's simply a feature of their mobile devices.

Contrast that with Google, who enters into agreements with their horizontal competitors to limit competition in various markets by leveraging the Android brand to give preference to Google services.

Apple has similar power in mobile OS. AT&T, Best Buy, etc. are restricted from loading their own or someone else's app stores, browser engines, etc. on iPhones they sell and as such, Apple is "forcing" their retail partners to give Apple preference in the app store, browser engine, etc. markets.

Apple does participate in the mobile OS market. They just happen to sell (license) it to consumers or to their retail partners as a package with the iPhone device. Apple also provides new iOS software separately for a period of time to iPhone owners.

That's simply not true from a market perspective. Just because two pieces of software are based on the same open source project does not mean that they aren't competing with each other.

Apple's iOS and Google's Android are the two major players in the mobile OS market. In the U.S., iOS happens to have around 55% to 60% of that market.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Removing the 7 day limitation doesn't make it a different kind of sideloading. Sideloading simply means installing apps outside the centralized store. With or without limitations, it's still sideloading.

Ah, Then I clarify it to “adding-a-type-of-sideloading-that-doesn’t-require-xcode-and-doesn’t-have-a-7-day-limitation-and-probably-several-other-things-a-particular-user-wants”

 

[Jake James]

Correct. The exemption gives you permission to modify iOS (aka jailbreak) for the specific purpose of bypassing DRM requirements on apps.

The point of the DMCA law is to prevent mods that are used to bypass DRM that is used for piracy. Since a security system is not really a DRM, an exemption was given and now modding iOS is fully legal. The whole point of jailbreaking is modding iOS, it never has been just about apps. Ironically, the ones who want apps are mostly piracy users (which is illegal duh).

I am a jailbreak developer and have been in the scene for years. Jailbreak developers take precautions to modify iOS fully locally without distributing Apple code because doing so could result in a lawsuit. There's a reason Apple doesn't sue jailbreak or tweak (iOS mods) developers, it's not illegal.

Also your source is outdated, the exemption includes tablets (was added later).

 

[Jake James]

Ah, Then I clarify it to “adding-a-type-of-sideloading-that-doesn’t-require-xcode-and-doesn’t-have-a-7-day-limitation-and-probably-several-other-things-a-particular-user-wants”

It's not a different type of sideloading. And why the hell does it matter anyway? It should be our right.

 

[BaldiMac]

In the Apple situation here, it's about the mobile OS market in which Apple has a dominant position and their alleged anticompetitive behavior related to iOS access, restrictions, etc. of alternative app stores.

It's not anti-competitive to control your own platform.

I don't understand so many people's obsession with calling Apple anti-competitive for controlling it's own platform. There is an easy, straightforward, honest argument that can be made... "I want Apple to support alternative app stores, so I support legislation to force them to do that." Simple. No need to paint an ordinary business decision as wrong or malicious. Of course, it lays bare your motivations instead of hiding behind claims of justice.

There is nothing wrong with creating a platform and charging developers for access to that platform under certain conditions. It happens all the time.

 

[Jake James]

It's not anti-competitive to control your own platform.

I don't understand so many people's obsession with calling Apple anti-competitive for controlling it's own platform. There is an easy, straightforward, honest argument that can be made... "I want Apple to support alternative app stores, so I support legislation to force them to do that." Simple. No need to paint an ordinary business decision as wrong or malicious. Of course, it lays bare your motivations instead of hiding behind claims of justice.

There is nothing wrong with creating a platform and charging developers for access to that platform under certain conditions. It happens all the time.

I support legislation that forces Apple to give the user the choice to run arbitrary code with arbitrary permissions on hardware they own. Do what you want with the software, if I control the hardware I can mod the software myself.

 

[BaldiMac]

The point of the DMCA law is to prevent mods that are used to bypass DRM that is used for piracy. Since a security system is not really a DRM, an exemption was given and now modding iOS is fully legal. The whole point of jailbreaking is modding iOS, it never has been just about apps. Ironically, the ones who want apps are mostly piracy users (which is illegal duh).

I am a jailbreak developer and have been in the scene for years. Jailbreak developers take precautions to modify iOS fully locally without distributing Apple code because doing so could result in a lawsuit. There's a reason Apple doesn't sue jailbreak or tweak (iOS mods) developers, it's not illegal.

Also your source is outdated, the exemption includes tablets (was added later).

I certainly understand why you want to believe that, but I don't think it's true. Feel free to link to the relevant law containing the exemption.

 

[webkit]

Historically, there has never been a company that has only 60% share of a particular market within which there are only two major players where legal action was taken based on their “dominant position”. Apple would be the first IF it goes forward.

Just thinking about the marketshare thing… If Apple were to restrict sales of the iPhone in the US such that it drops below 40%, then all the lawsuits would drop, right?

Countries can get together and file collective lawsuits but in general, a U.S. lawsuit like this would only have to apply/impact the U.S. just as an EU lawsuit would only have to apply/impact EU countries.

Laws and regulations can vary by country but yes, if Apple's share dropped below a certain threshold then the case would likely be dropped per laws in that jurisdiction.

No, it’s the same thing. I can understand how, for the point you’re attempting to make, it would be very convenient if it weren’t the same thing. But, for purposes of bringing forth legal action, in the history of both “monopoly power” and “dominant position” it is indeed the same. Which is why, since their inception, no legal action had been taken against Apple until recently.

No, it's not the same thing from a U.S. antitrust case perspective. In this example, a grocery store with a small market share would not be subject to the same litigation as a company that has 60% share of a given market. A dominant U.S. position in the market in question would have to be shown.

 

[Jake James]

I certainly understand why you want to believe that, but I don't think it's true. Feel free to link to the relevant law containing the exemption.

I don't just want to believe that, it is true. The whole point of jailbreaking is modding your device, it's the reason it exists. Whether you mod it to run unsigned apps or inject unsigned code or do nothing at all makes no difference in the eyes of the law. As long as you're not using it for piracy, you're not doing anything illegal. Don't you think the at least one of the countless tweak developers would be sued for modding iOS software if it was illegal?

 

[webkit]

It's not anti-competitive to control your own platform.

I don't understand so many people's obsession with calling Apple anti-competitive for controlling it's own platform. There is an easy, straightforward, honest argument that can be made... "I want Apple to support alternative app stores, so I support legislation to force them to do that." Simple. No need to paint an ordinary business decision as wrong or malicious. Of course, it lays bare your motivations instead of hiding behind claims of justice.

There is nothing wrong with creating a platform and charging developers for access to that platform under certain conditions. It happens all the time.

"Control" is vague but it can absolutely be anticompetitive for a company to have "excess" control when they have a dominant position in the given market with few players.

Look at what happened to Microsoft in the 1990s with Windows, despite them even allowing end users to install alternative browsers. Apple not only has restrictions for AT&T, Best Buy, etc. but also the end users who may want to install alternative app stores, browser engines, etc.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple has similar power in mobile OS.

Not even close. Microsoft had 95% of the market.

AT&T, Best Buy, etc. are restricted from loading their own or someone else's app stores, browser engines, etc. on iPhones they sell and as such, Apple is "forcing" their retail partners to give Apple preference in the app store, browser engine, etc. markets.

Hah! Good try. Again, controlling your own platform is normal competition.

Apple does participate in the mobile OS market. They just happen to sell (license) it to consumers or to their retail partners as a package with the iPhone device. Apple also provides new iOS software separately for a period of time to iPhone owners.

Exactly! And we measure those sales in the SMARTPHONE market. Not by talking about install base.

Apple's iOS and Google's Android are the two major players in the mobile OS market. In the U.S., iOS happens to have around 55% to 60% of that market.

Google Android only exists on Google Pixel and other Google devices. They have a small market share.

Now, Google Play Services are part of Google's anti-competitive agreement with it's horizontal competitors that control the vast majority of global smartphone market.

 

[BaldiMac]

"Control" is vague but it can absolutely be anticompetitive for a company to have "excess" control when they have a dominant position in the given market with few players.

I have no idea where you are getting that from. Perhaps you could go back and read the summary from the FTC that I posted earlier. Single firm antitrust actions in the US require "significant and durable market power" combined with exclusionary conduct without legitimate business justification.

Look at what happened to Microsoft in the 1990s with Windows, despite them even allowing end users to install alternative browsers. Apple not only has restrictions for AT&T, Best Buy, etc. but also the end users who may want to install alternative app stores, browser engines, etc.

Again, Microsoft didn't get in trouble for having "excess control". They got in trouble for actively leveraging their market power to prevent their partners from making decisions to prefer other browsers. Microsoft could bundle IE with Windows. They got in trouble by using incentives to prevent Dell, HP, etc. from giving preference to different browsers.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't just want to believe that, it is true. The whole point of jailbreaking is modding your device, it's the reason it exists. Whether you mod it to run unsigned apps or inject unsigned code or do nothing at all makes no difference in the eyes of the law. As long as you're not using it for piracy, you're not doing anything illegal.

I understand that the whole point people jailbreak is to illegally modify other people's IP.

Like I said, feel free to link to the exemption if you believe I'm wrong. I linked you to a reference that confirms my position.

Don't you think the at least one of the countless tweak developers would be sued for modding iOS software if it was illegal?

No. I don't think it's worth Apple's time, money or reputation.

 

[Jake James]

I understand that the whole point people jailbreak is to illegally modify other people's IP.

Like I said, feel free to link to the exemption if you believe I'm wrong. I linked you to a reference that confirms my position.


No. I don't think it's worth Apple's time, money or reputation.

Again it's not illegal. It's only illegal to modify code with the purpose of bypassing DRM (aka piracy). The exemption wouldn't be given knowing everyone uses jailbreaking to mod iOS. Saurik, the person behind this lawsuit is also the person who fought to make the jailbreaking exemption a thing, he's also the person who made the biggest code injection library for the sole purpose of modding iOS. You think he'd know if he didn't reach his goal to make code injection via jailbreaking legal. What's even the point of the exemption if you can't inject code.

The source you gave is inaccurate considering tablets aren't included (excemption was given years after smartphones). I can't find a legal document describing the exemption. What did it say exactly? Was it something along the lines of "install unauthorized applications"? I hope you realize that the law won't say "install tweaks", by applications they mean unauthorized code, which includes tweaks.

Besides all of that, the point of the DMCA law is to prevent bypassing DRM for piracy purposes, as I've stated multiple times. Tweaking isn't piracy.

 

[wbeasley]

People are used to doing it that way on computers. On Android people barely sideload

So youve admitted a minority of Apple users want to sideload... and very few Android users do too.

Basically we should all suck it up and force Apple to change everything we knew before we bought an iPhone just so a few people can tinker? And risk everyone else's security?

Where I worked, someone downloaded an Android app and it hacked the network. Took days to work out who it was. Brought the entire network and mail to a halt because one person loaded a bad app. Now the network is heavily firewalled and the internal app I supported has issues because limited wifi access upsets it validating sometimes. All because some person loaded a dubious app.

There are costs to allowing full access.
Fine if you want to do it. But if you do, Apple should also be able to make it a one way road and you don't get back in without reverting to full factory settings.

That protects the 99.99% of users who are happy with the environment and virtually worry-free use.

 

[Jake James]

So youve admitted a minority of Apple users want to sideload... and very few Android users do too.

Basically we should all suck it up and force Apple to change everything we knew before we bought an iPhone just so a few people can tinker? And risk everyone else's security?

Where I worked, someone downloaded an Android app and it hacked the network. Took days to work out who it was. Brought the entire network and mail to a halt because one person loaded a bad app. Now the network is heavily firewalled and the internal app I supported has issues because limited wifi access upsets it validating sometimes. All because some person loaded a dubious app.

There are costs to allowing full access.
Fine if you want to do it. But if you do, Apple should also be able to make it a one way road and you don't get back in without reverting to full factory settings.

That protects the 99.99% of users who are happy with the environment and virtually worry-free use.

You wouldn't notice the difference. Everyone would be happy in the end. As for your case, it's your fault for having security so poor that one phone hacked the whole network. As for that guy, it's his fault he got his phone hacked. Where I'm going is, let everyone have responsibility for their actions.

And I agree even if I have to erase my phone or do something drastic. In fact, the harder it is (as long as not impossible and doesn't have discriminative side effects) the better as clueless people don't get to accidentally hack their work network.

 

[ChromeAce]

I'm licensing to use iOS, the hardware is mine and mine alone, and therefore I should be able to put my own software in it, even if I need to install another OS, which I can't because the hardware is locked down.

Uh, you bought a phone that’s locked to iOS. You knew that going in. If you want to put a propeller on it and make it a drone go ahead, but the propeller manufacturer has no standing to force Apple to make the phone with the holes they would snap in to.

 

[webkit]

Not even close. Microsoft had 95% of the market.

By similar, I was referring to how Apple sells/license and puts restrictions on iPhones/iOS they sell themselves to consumers as well as those sold by third party companies. Not that they had similar share of their respective OS markets.

Hah! Good try. Again, controlling your own platform is normal competition.

"Normal" to some degree but excess control by a company with a dominant position in a particular market can be viewed as anticompetitive behavior.

Exactly! And we measure those sales in the SMARTPHONE market. Not by talking about install base.

It’s both the mobile OS market (most relevant to the App Store situation here) and the smartphone market. Apple just happens to sell/license the OS with the iPhone as well as provides future iOS versions to iPhone owners separately for a period of time.

Google Android only exists on Google Pixel and other Google devices. They have a small market share.

Android OS exists on Google devices as well as non-Google devices and is one of the two major operating systems in the U.S. mobile OS market. iOS happens to have the largest share with around 55% to 60% of that market.

I have no idea where you are getting that from. Perhaps you could go back and read the summary from the FTC that I posted earlier. Single firm antitrust actions in the US require "significant and durable market power" combined with exclusionary conduct without legitimate business justification.

There are a several actions, activities, etc. that can fall under antitrust laws and regulations. A company with a dominant position in a given market trying to wield excess control of their platform through things like restricting access can be viewed as anticompetitive behavior violating antitrust laws/regulations.

Again, Microsoft didn't get in trouble for having "excess control". They got in trouble for actively leveraging their market power to prevent their partners from making decisions to prefer other browsers. Microsoft could bundle IE with Windows. They got in trouble by using incentives to prevent Dell, HP, etc. from giving preference to different browsers.

Microsoft got "in trouble" for a variety of reasons including trying to have “excess control” of Windows by restricting what could or couldn’t be included, how, where, etc.

 

[Jake James]

Uh, you bought a phone that’s locked to iOS. You knew that going in. If you want to put a propeller on it and make it a drone go ahead, but the propeller manufacturer has no standing to force Apple to make the phone with the holes they would snap in to.

Apple has no obligation to make it work, but Apple shouldn't stop me from doing it when it does work.

 

[ChromeAce]

Apple has no obligation to make it work, but Apple shouldn't stop me from doing it when it does work.

They don’t. Jailbreak the phone. No one from Apple will stop you.

 

[BaldiMac]

Again it's not illegal. It's only illegal to modify code with the purpose of bypassing DRM (aka piracy).

Nope. Copyright law gives the IP owner exclusive rights to create derivative works supject to specific limitations. There is no limitation that allows you to modify code just because you want to.

Chapter 1 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office

Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright

www.copyright.gov

The DMCA is a law that governs DRM in copyrighted works. The library of congress reviews and approves exceptions to the DMCA every 3 years. You were correct that they added tablets to the jailbreaking exception in 2015. However, the jailbreaking exception is still only for running legally obtained software. There is still no exception for modifying the OS because you want to.

By similar, I was referring to how Apple sells/license and puts restrictions on iPhones/iOS they sell themselves to consumers as well as those sold by third party companies. Not that they had similar share of their respective OS markets.





"Normal" to some degree but excess control by a company with a dominant position in a particular market can be viewed as anticompetitive behavior.





It’s both the mobile OS market (most relevant to the App Store situation here) and the smartphone market. Apple just happens to sell/license the OS with the iPhone as well as provides future iOS versions to iPhone owners separately for a period of time.





Android OS exists on Google devices as well as non-Google devices and is one of the two major operating systems in the U.S. mobile OS market. iOS happens to have the largest share with around 55% to 60% of that market.





There are a several actions, activities, etc. that can fall under antitrust laws and regulations. A company with a dominant position in a given market trying to wield excess control of their platform through things like restricting access can be viewed as anticompetitive behavior violating antitrust laws/regulations.





Microsoft got "in trouble" for a variety of reasons including trying to have “excess control” of Windows by restricting what could or couldn’t be included, how, where, etc.

I linked to the FTC's definition. You're just making things up that sound right to you while ignoring a direct source. If you can't acknowledge the difference between a market and an install base, there isn't much point to the conversation.

And, of course, two different products based on the same open source project are not the same thing. Brave and Chrome browsers are both based on the chromium open source project. The also compete with each other.

 

[webkit]

I linked to the FTC's definition. You're just making things up that sound right to you while ignoring a direct source. If you can't acknowledge the difference between a market and an install base, there isn't much point to the conversation.

And, of course, two different products based on the same open source project are not the same thing. Brave and Chrome browsers are both based on the chromium open source project. The also compete with each other.

I'm not "making things up." There are a variety of antitrust laws and regulations tied to the FTC Act, the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The FTC and DOJ Antitrust division typically work together on a range of federal antitrust matters. Additionally, although not necessarily applicable here, most individual states have their own antitrust/anticompetition laws and regulations.

 

[BaldiMac]

There are a variety of antitrust laws and regulations tied to the FTC Act, the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The FTC and DOJ Antitrust division typically work together on a range of federal antitrust matters. Additionally, although not necessarily applicable here, most individual states have their own antitrust/anticompetition laws and regulations.

Absolutely. That's why I linked to and quoted the FTC directly explaining how they evaluate single firm conduct. "Excess control" is nowhere to be found.

 

[Jake James]

the jailbreaking exception is still only for running legally obtained software

Tweaks are legally obtained software. They're addons that are injected to iOS by the jailbreak. Again, jailbreaking itself modifies iOS code. If jailbreaking is legal, modifying iOS code is legal.

I should again emphasize that tweaks are copyrighted works of the people who wrote them and not Apple, making a tweak doesn't require you to distribute Apple's code. Therefore tweaks are not derivative works of iOS. Tweaks are injected by the jailbreak to iOS on runtime.

 

[Jake James]

They don’t. Jailbreak the phone. No one from Apple will stop you.

By putting a barrier they are stopping me from doing it. Jailbreaking isn't always possible. What they should do is make every barrier that prevents the owner from running arbitrary code optional. Whether the arbitrary code is capable of running on the hardware is obviously not Apple's problem, just allow me to do it and I take responsibility if it doesn't work or breaks something.