Epic Games and Spotify Say Apple's Latest DMA Changes Are 'Illegal' and 'Deliberately Confusing'

[Sophisticatednut]

So they aren’t in the business of selling their IP. They sell devices and license the OS to the user o such device. The underlaying inventions are not at any point being sold just the device and an OS license. Neither are being given for free.

If they sold their IP would mean you would be the owner of the invention. In turn you would be able to produce and market their realization.

I really recommend you to read EU law.
The intention isn’t ever relevant, if its not clearly stated in contract at the point of sale then that’s not what’s being offered.

Apple isn’t selling their IP, the customer is purchasing a unique copy of the IP that comes with the product they bought.

Just how when you purchase a physical DVD, a game or software etc. You have full legal right to do with as you please as long as you don’t sell copies of it. You can remove the DRM, modify it, hack it destroy it etc and the IP holder doesn’t have any legal recourse.

Most known as the exhaustion of rights that happens the moment it’s been sold.

The act of providing a perpetual license of anything is a transfer of ownership.

I was just correcting your perception that their IP/Invention is anyway being given when you buy a macOS device.
For free or whatnot.

Neither the IP is being given or its realization is given to the market for free.

The price of the IP is completely irrelevant to the law in regards to understanding it as a transaction or not.

Under the EU's software copyright law (Software Directive 2009) the first sale in the EU of a copy of a computer program by the right-holder, exhausts the distribution right (provided by copyright) within the EU of that copy.

• Oracle argued there was no sale as its licensees did not own the copy on their servers but were merely licensed to use it.
• The CJEU said a sale was "an agreement by which a person, in return for payment, transfers to another person his rights of ownership in an item of tangible or intangible property belonging to him".

EU highest court says software licence terms can be ignored

In 2012 the European Union's highest court, The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) in the case UsedSoft v Oracle made the following…

www.lexology.com

pean Union June 27 2013
In 2012 the European Union's highest court, The Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) in the case UsedSoft v Oracle made the following decisions:

• Oracle's software licence was a contract of sale
• the terms of the licence could be ignored
• the downloading of the software from Oracle's website by the licensee (now considered a purchaser) exhausted Oracle's right to control further distribution of the downloaded copy
• it was therefore not an infringement of Oracle's copyright in the software for the licensee to onsell his licence
• the trading of second hand licences and/or copies of the software was lawful.

CJEU: Supply of software by way of a perpetual license is considered "sale of goods" within the meaning of the Agency Directive​

In the particular case of the sale of a copy of computer software, the Court has held that the downloading of a copy of a computer program and the conclusion of a user licence agreement for that copy form an indivisible whole. Downloading a copy of such a program is pointless if the copy cannot be used by its possessor. Those two operations must therefore be examined as a whole for the purposes of their legal classification

EUR-Lex - 62019CJ0410 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

 

[Sophisticatednut]

You can get something free, but you can't buy or sell something free.
The concept of selling/buying implies exchanging goods or services for some form of payment. "Nothing" cannot be some form of payment.

It’s called transfer of ownership is the sale.

You always end up with a transaction as you engage in a legal contract. You can’t use something else without doing a transaction of some kind.

 

[chmania]

It’s called transfer of ownership is the sale.

You always end up with a transaction as you engage in a legal contract. You can’t use something else without doing a transaction of some kind.

Something of value has to change hands, money or otherwise, if a sale has taken place. Shops can't sell anything free, there should be some money involved, at least a cent, at least 1/100 of the currency of a given country. In the matter of selling, you can't sell something with a monetary value for nothing. You can give away something of value, but you might have pay tax on that, but some amounts are exempt from that. But you can't sell anything of a monetary value for nothing. Giving, or transferring something of monetary value for free to another person, private or institutional is not selling.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Something of value has to change hands, money or otherwise, if a sale had taken place. Shops can't sell anything free, there should be some money involved, at least a cent, at least 1/100 of the currency of a given country, at least in the EU. In the matter of selling, you can't sell something with a monetary value for nothing. You can give away something of value, but you might have pay tax on that, but some amounts are exempt from that. But you can't sell anything of a monetary value for nothing. Giving, or transferring something of monetary value for free to another person, private or institutional is not selling.

Your personal information have commercial value as defined in GDPR. So if this free app requires any private information that’s a transaction.

And you missed that you don’t need to sell something to have a transaction. I can give something to you for free and it will be a transfer of ownership.

A gift is

 

[I7guy]

[…].

What are yours founded on? Your Apple stock?

Behave.

Entering into apple ecosystem is an optional proposition. Don’t like it, dont enter into it.

 

[I7guy]

Natural monopolies often have to deal with even stricter regulations and monitoring than “traditional” monopolies in several areas. If Apple is a natural monopoly, it sounds like the EU is being too easy on them.

Do you have a citation and examples of this? Because apple sure as shooting has a monopoly on the iPhone for example. Just like Honda has a monopoly on the accord.

 

[chmania]

Your personal information have commercial value as defined in GDPR. So if this free app requires any private information that’s a transaction.

True. And, I'm not talking about a transaction, but the act of selling. You just can't sell anything for nothing.

And you missed that you don’t need to sell something to have a transaction. I can give something to you for free and it will be a transfer of ownership.

That is also true. But it is not a sale. It is giving.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple IP being given away for free on the Mac …

Hey. I was just commenting this. They aren’t giving away their IP, for free or what not. That is not what is being transacted when one’s buys an device, licenses software or APIs.

What is Copyright? | U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. In copyright law, there are a lot of different types of works, including paintings, photographs, illustrations, musical compositions...

www.copyright.gov

Apple isn’t selling their IP …

Agreed. Neither giving away for free as you seam to have written.

Each device / OS they sell is the realization of their IP. The IP itself is not at sale or given.

Now their IP cannot be realized for whatever purpose by third parties for market without authorization of the copyright owner. That is copyright law at work, protecting the owner of the IP.

That is all.

I guess we mean the same.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

True. And, I'm not talking about a transaction, but the act of selling. You just can't sell anything for nothing.

That is also true. But it is not a sale. It is giving.

In regards For consumer laws it makes little difference when its Still a commercial transaction.

EU just doesn’t agree with you. You are still selling something as it’s sales contract.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Entering into apple ecosystem is an optional proposition. Don’t like it, dont enter into it.

The EU ecosystem is also as optional.

I don’t understand what is your point with such a statement.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Hey. I was just commenting this. They aren’t giving away their IP no or selling copyright.

What is Copyright? | U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. In copyright law, there are a lot of different types of works, including paintings, photographs, illustrations, musical compositions...

www.copyright.gov

Irrelevant as American IP law is irrelevant in EU, and I’m arguing from EU law.

As I gave to you before according to EU jurisprudence Apple is selling their copyright and IP.

Agreed. Neither giving away for free as you seam to have written.

Each device / OS they sell is the realization of their IP. The IP itself is not being provided.

Now their IP cannot be realized for whatever purpose by third parties for market without authorization of the copyright owner. That is copyright law at work, protecting the owner of the IP.

That is all.

I guess we mean the same.

Well no not fully, as it stands in EU

How Exhaustion of Rights Works in the EU:

1. First Sale Doctrine:
• When an IP-protected product is sold by the rights holder or with their consent within the EU/EEA, the rights holder’s control over the distribution of that particular item is exhausted. This is often referred to as the “first sale doctrine” or “principle of exhaustion.”
• After the first sale, the purchaser (or any subsequent owner) is free to resell, lend, or otherwise distribute the specific item within the EU/EEA without needing permission from the IP owner.
2. Scope of Exhaustion:
• EU/EEA-wide Exhaustion: Exhaustion only applies within the EU/EEA. This means that if an IP-protected product is sold in the EU/EEA, it can be freely moved, resold, or distributed within those territories without infringing on the IP rights.
• No International Exhaustion: The EU does not recognize international exhaustion. This means that if a product is sold outside the EU/EEA, the IP rights holder can still control the importation and sale of that product within the EU/EEA. For example, goods sold in the U.S. cannot be freely imported and sold in the EU without the IP holder’s consent.

 

[chmania]

In regards For consumer laws it makes little difference when its Still a commercial transaction.

EU just doesn’t agree with you. You are still selling something as it’s sales contract.

I live in the EU. You can't sell something for nothing. You can give anything away, paying tax on it or not. Giving and selling are two different things, even though it is a transaction.

 

[chmania]

Irrelevant as American IP law is irrelevant in EU, and I’m arguing from EU law.

As I gave to you before according to EU jurisprudence Apple is selling their copyright and IP.

Well no not fully, as it stands in EU

How Exhaustion of Rights Works in the EU:

1. First Sale Doctrine:
• When an IP-protected product is sold by the rights holder or with their consent within the EU/EEA, the rights holder’s control over the distribution of that particular item is exhausted. This is often referred to as the “first sale doctrine” or “principle of exhaustion.”
• After the first sale, the purchaser (or any subsequent owner) is free to resell, lend, or otherwise distribute the specific item within the EU/EEA without needing permission from the IP owner.
2. Scope of Exhaustion:
• EU/EEA-wide Exhaustion: Exhaustion only applies within the EU/EEA. This means that if an IP-protected product is sold in the EU/EEA, it can be freely moved, resold, or distributed within those territories without infringing on the IP rights.
• No International Exhaustion: The EU does not recognize international exhaustion. This means that if a product is sold outside the EU/EEA, the IP rights holder can still control the importation and sale of that product within the EU/EEA. For example, goods sold in the U.S. cannot be freely imported and sold in the EU without the IP holder’s consent.

This is true.

 

[I7guy]

Hey. I was just commenting this. They aren’t giving away their IP, for free or what not. That is not what is being transacted when one’s buys an device, licenses software or APIs.

What is Copyright? | U.S. Copyright Office

Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression. In copyright law, there are a lot of different types of works, including paintings, photographs, illustrations, musical compositions...

www.copyright.gov

Agreed. Neither giving away for free as you seam to have written.

Each device / OS they sell is the realization of their IP. The IP itself is not at sale or given.

Now their IP cannot be realized for whatever purpose by third parties for market without authorization of the copyright owner. That is copyright law at work, protecting the owner of the IP.

That is all.

I guess we mean the same.

Apples revenue is being cut because they have been legislated to allow any and all third party app stores. Of course the hoopla about the pricing structure will continue to be debated. But none the less given the above there is no other conclusion that apples IP is being legislated away.

 

[AppliedMicro]

For the 800th time, Apple has every right to offer one set of license terms for free apps that provide physical goods and services and another set of license terms for free apps that offer digital goods and services. Particularly when said digital goods and services are almost certainly going to be used on the device they’re being purchased from. Doesn’t matter if you think it’s unjustified

…and part of these license terms have now been made illegal in the European Union.

You pay for access to the tools. You still have to agree to the licenses. Those set out terms for free and paid apps. $99 may be all an individual developer will pay to develop and distribute a free app. Paid apps have different terms, and usually a lot more developers

You’re missing the part where Apple’s licensing terms for paid apps (such as on in-app purchases) have been made illegal. Distribution of free apps was free (past having paid the developer subscription) - and it still is. Is Apple‘s trickery with the „Core Technology Fee“ legal, particularly in light of them keeping around their legacy business terms? We shall see.

It has ever right to kill innovation within its borders by changing its market economy to prop up companies with horrible business models, like Spotify.

If anyone is killing innovation, it’s Apple - as we’ve seen with game streaming apps.

But but is Apple Music‘s business model better than Spotify’s? 😂

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I live in the EU. You can't sell something for nothing. You can give anything away, paying tax on it or not. Giving and selling are two different things, even though it is a transaction.

Well then please read upon EU laws.

You per definition under can sell something for nothing. This is a fully legal sales contract for transfer of ownership of a goods.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apples revenue is being cut because they have been legislated to allow any and all third party app stores.

In sum the DMA simply legislated specific kinds of Internet devices have to be built to cater for software and digital services to be sold and provided by anyone directly or indirectly to their customers. This if they want to provide these kinds of devices to the market.

Much like the Internet is since it came to frutiition. Like any other device and OS was and the vast majority is.

This simply makes sure that device / OS manufacturers cannot leverage their play on other markets by winning the device / OS market. Much like others previsously could not in analogous situations, giving space for companies like Apple to exist and prosper that otherwise would not.

That is all.

How does this cut Apple revenue? Are you saying that competition on non device / os markets is armful to Apple? Why? Are you saying that there isn’t money to be made in the device / OS market? Man, Apple is the quintessential example that there are lots of money to be made … not long ago iPhone sales was over 80% of their revenue and they were already climbing to a trillion dollar valuations. If they continue to innovate and build amazing devices and digital devices the revenue can only grow. But not at the expense of hijacking customers from other markets into an App Store or several App Stores for that matter.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

…and part of these license terms have now been made illegal in the European Union.


You’re missing the part where Apple’s licensing terms for paid apps (such as on in-app purchases) have been made illegal. Distribution of free apps was free (past having paid the developer subscription) - and it still is. Is Apple‘s trickery with the „Core Technology Fee“ legal, particularly in light of them keeping around their legacy business terms? We shall see.


If anyone is killing innovation, it’s Apple - as we’ve seen with game streaming apps.

But but is Apple Music‘s business model better than Spotify’s? 😂

Well don’t you know Apple owns all the app developers IP and have the sole right to exploit it for commercial purposes.

And we as customers are the property of Apple, as they alone decide who we get to spend money on.

And if Apple is prevented from realizing the maximum economic benefit, then that means someone stole this revenue from them.

And naturally they must recoup this from somewhere else

 

[Abazigal]

[QUOTE="AppliedMicro, post: 33312089, member: 217228]

But but is Apple Music‘s business model better than Spotify’s? [/QUOTE]

Apple Music remains an app dedicated solely to streaming music and nothing else. There is something to be said about this level of simplicity and focus.

Spotify has now become a catch all basin for assorted audio services, from music to podcasts to audiobooks. Their rates are amongst the lowest in the industry, they push ads aggressively, it’s no small secret that they are relying on alternatives like audiobooks to reduce the payout to artists, and their service is still missing features such as hi-res, Spatial Audio, airplay 2 and there is no Vision Pro app (and it took them forever to support devices like the Apple Watch and Apple TV).

In part because there is less pressure for Apple Music to be profitable.

I don’t know about better business model, but I know which I prefer.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Apple Music remains an app dedicated solely to streaming music and nothing else. There is something to be said about this level of simplicity and focus.

Spotify has now become a catch all basin for assorted audio services, from music to podcasts to audiobooks. Their rates are amongst the lowest in the industry, they push ads aggressively, it’s no small secret that they are relying on alternatives like audiobooks to reduce the payout to artists, and their service is still missing features such as hi-res, Spatial Audio, airplay 2 and there is no Vision Pro app (and it took them forever to support devices like the Apple Watch and Apple TV).

In part because there is less pressure for Apple Music to be profitable.

I don’t know about better business model, but I know which I prefer.

Well why should Spotify actually pander to iPhone users when they aren’t paying customers?

 

[wbeasley]

The citizens (or non-citizens) living the EU have more consumer rights. For example, the standard EU consumer law gives you 2 year statutory guarantee for the device you buy (computer, laptop, mobile phone etc). In some EU countries, that right is even more, 6 years in Ireland, for example.

View attachment 2404873
The makers have to make more reliable devices to sell there.👌

"up to..."

that's just vague.
likes sales "up to 90% off" and it's one crap item no one wants. most being 10% off or nothing. it's clickbait basically.

here we have grounds based on price of purchase and reasonable expectation of life of that item.

i got some curtains replaced that were three years old and tha backing material fell off.
the sales person said 5 years was a reasonable expectation so after proof of purchase, they replaced them.

but 6 year old tech would be a gen or two behind. useful for some tasks sure but not a main workforce item.

i wonder how many people have tested the "lifetime warranty" on USB drives?

 

[wbeasley]

Well why should Spotify actually pander to iPhone users when they aren’t paying customers?

This comment makes absolutely no sense...

I was an iPhone user who had a paid Spotify subscription.
I managed to easily sign up through their website. And download the iPhone app and sign in. Easy as.
Apple provided the app from the AppStore for free.

How is Spotify having to pander to iPhone users when they are/arent paying customers?

Spotify grew because it was well known on the Appstore.
The huge user base who download apps there is lucrative enough to build an app.

Spotify choose not to allow users to sign up in app to avoid paying Apple anything.
That's their choice like many other app devs.

But subscribers have also been let down by Spotify...
where is the long promised high res music option?

instead they add stuff that hasnt worked out well (podcasts).
and fighting Apple...

you would think posters on this site would be a lot more encouraging for apps to be as good and integrated into the ecosystem as they can be in the Apple environment...

 

[I7guy]

In sum the DMA simply legislated specific kinds of Internet devices have to be built to cater for software and digital services to be sold and provided by anyone directly or indirectly to their customers. This if they want to provide these kinds of devices to the market.

That’s exactly what I said. They are legislated to provide 3rd party app stores and even devs who tried to defraud apple, apple is now forced to accept them back in.

Much like the Internet is since it came to frutiition. Like any other device and OS was and the vast majority is.

In my opinion, no.

This simply makes sure that device / OS manufacturers cannot leverage their play on other markets by winning the device / OS market. Much like others previsously could not in analogous situations, giving space for companies like Apple to exist and prosper that otherwise would not.

Apple created the market, they aren't the biggest, but they are influential.

That is all.

How does this cut Apple revenue?

Already explained it.

Are you saying that competition on non device / os markets is armful to Apple?

No I'm saying with 3rd party app stores charging fees less (or more I suppose) than apple by regulation is giving away apples IP.

Why? Are you saying that there isn’t money to be made in the device / OS market?

That isn't what I'm saying.

Man, Apple is the quintessential example that there are lots of money to be made … not long ago iPhone sales was over 80% of their revenue and they were already climbing to a trillion dollar valuations.

They are big by the financial numbers, but not so much so by the marketshare numbers.

If they continue to innovate and build amazing devices and digital devices the revenue can only grow.

Not if the EU finds other ways to take their revenue and give it to other 3rd parties.

But not at the expense of hijacking customers from other markets into an App Store or several App Stores for that matter.

Customers should be voting with their $$$. If the competition has better this or more of that or is less expensive. Same as devs. But I suppose there will be a group that supports the DMA and a group that doesn't. Such is life.

 

[wbeasley]

That’s exactly what I said. They are legislated to provide 3rd party app stores and even devs who tried to defraud apple, apple is now forced to accept them back in.

In my opinion, no.

Apple created the market, they aren't the biggest, but they are influential.

Already explained it.

No I'm saying with 3rd party app stores charging fees less (or more I suppose) than apple by regulation is giving away apples IP.

That isn't what I'm saying.

They are big by the financial numbers, but not so much so by the marketshare numbers.

Not if the EU finds other ways to take their revenue and give it to other 3rd parties.

Customers should be voting with their $$$. If the competition has better this or more of that or is less expensive. Same as devs. But I suppose there will be a group that supports the DMA and a group that doesn't. Such is life.

I guess the EU will just keep moving the goal posts...

They forced alt app stores but you can't make users shop there.
They will probably next force Apple to make any fee almost 0% to allow it.
And then if people still dont shop there? Horses to water...
Then a pop up window on new phone to choose an app store? (that will be fun with noone having a million long established useful apps in one place...)

As you said in your final paragraph, people should be voting with their wallets.
If Apple are not providing enough features or value then people will go elsewhere.

Look at Sony. They had the Walkman market. But were too slow to go MP3.
They had great tvs but continued to tell people their CRTs were "flat" from top to bottom instead of jumping to plasma/LCD.
A market leader can lose it's crown just by someone else offering something perceived as better - all without legal frameworks.

Yes phone environments do lock you in (but funny how Android users seem to be jumping to iOS in growing numbers lately even with the degree of difficulty). Cloud data and tools to switch make things easier. Not like the early days when you had to manually reload your contacts...

 

[surferfb]

I guess the EU will just keep moving the goal posts...

They forced alt app stores but you can't make users shop there.
They will probably next force Apple to make any fee almost 0% to allow it.
And then if people still dont shop there? Horses to water...
Then a pop up window on new phone to choose an app store? (that will be fun with noone having a million long established useful apps in one place...)

As you said in your final paragraph, people should be voting with their wallets.
If Apple are not providing enough features or value then people will go elsewhere.

Look at Sony. They had the Walkman market. But were too slow to go MP3.
They had great tvs but continued to tell people their CRTs were "flat" from top to bottom instead of jumping to plasma/LCD.
A market leader can lose it's crown just by someone else offering something perceived as better - all without legal frameworks.

Yes phone environments do lock you in (but funny how Android users seem to be jumping to iOS in growing numbers lately even with the degree of difficulty). Cloud data and tools to switch make things easier. Not like the early days when you had to manually reload your contacts...

Exactly - EU is just going to move the goal posts. Look at Verstager and Facebook. Five years ago she said “I would like to have a Facebook in which I pay a fee each month, but I would have no tracking and advertising and the full benefits of privacy.” - Facebook introduces that, (and at a price that is way less than I would have expected), and the answer is “nope, not good enough - you have to offer your services using a business model that is way less profitable (and worse for end users)”. It’s so obscene it has me defending Meta, a company I think is terrible, border-line evil, that literally makes the world worse.

Side note: You’re absolutely right they’re going to require a popup to choose your App Store, and it’s going to be a nightmare for both developers and unsophisticated end users. If they don’t think Apple should be allowed to pre-install and set a default a web browser a phone, they’re certainly not going to allow the App Store to be.