[HN Gopher] Apple Loses Top Court Fight Over German Antitrust Cr...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Apple Loses Top Court Fight Over German Antitrust Crackdown
        
       Author : jocaal
       Score  : 127 points
       Date   : 2025-03-19 10:36 UTC (12 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
        
       | focusedone wrote:
       | https://archive.is/GAJzw
        
         | iwooky wrote:
         | thanks!
        
       | euroderf wrote:
       | What was Apple's legal effort based on? That somehow all the
       | market numbers are wrong? That although it might seem like Apple
       | is "in a strong position", the reality distortion field states
       | otherwise?
        
         | bmandale wrote:
         | The legal theory of "every minute we delay this from going into
         | force we make a million dollars".
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | The law in question applies to companies with an "outstanding
         | cross-market importance". There are no hard criteria for that,
         | so of course Apple would try to argue against themselves
         | meeting that definition.
        
       | fsckboy wrote:
       | how does this work in the EU, wouldn't regulating a "single
       | market monopoly" be an EU/EC issue and not a German issue?
        
         | lnauta wrote:
         | AFAIK the EU law has to be implemented on a local level, and
         | the countries' agencies can uphold in their respective country.
         | Once a single country has a precedent, this can be used by
         | other member states.
         | 
         | Correct me if I'm wrong.
        
           | District5524 wrote:
           | Nope. 1) Not all of the "EU law" behaves the same way. There
           | are legal acts of the EU that are directly applicable (like
           | most provisions in regulations), there are even some
           | provisions of the primary legislation (treaties) that can be
           | applied directly (i.e. are binding and can be litigated). Of
           | course, there are also legal acts that need implementation
           | (like most provisions of directives). 2) EU law is upheld
           | both by the EU Court of Justice (Luxembourg) and national
           | courts, this depends on the cause of action you have. 3) An
           | "agency" has a special meaning in the EU, that doesn't mean
           | the same thing as a federal agency in the US (as a branch of
           | the executive). There are instead EU institutions and
           | national public bodies (whose exact nomenclature depends on
           | local law) that may also have the task of upholding
           | legislation. 4) No precedents are necessary or used at the EU
           | level. Precedents are more a common law thing, they have an
           | explicit binding nature for courts there. While there are
           | common law countries (Cyprus, Ireland, Malta) with
           | precedents, their precedents have no special place or role in
           | how EU law works, there is no stare decisis how it works in
           | common law. So, this is a national decision based on German
           | national enforcement reviewed by a German court.
        
         | iamkonstantin wrote:
         | This is a case by Germany's own cartel watchdog, the "market"
         | it refers to is the German market. This is unrelated (though
         | compatible with) the DMA.
        
       | caycep wrote:
       | honestly, this is where Apple's intersection between science and
       | humanities should include political science, and ethics.
        
         | mmooss wrote:
         | > Apple's intersection between science and humanities
         | 
         | What does that refer to?
        
           | r00fus wrote:
           | https://submittedforyourperusal.com/2010/02/10/the-
           | intersect...
        
             | mmooss wrote:
             | ty
        
       | grishka wrote:
       | Tangentially, what about Apple's "core technology fee" for
       | sideloaded apps? Is it still a thing? If so, will the EU seek to
       | make it illegal?
        
         | Mindwipe wrote:
         | Yes and quite possibly.
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | Apple amended their rules by not requiring the CTF from
         | noncommercial developers and from commercial developers with
         | less than 10 million Euro worldwide yearly revenue and less
         | than 1 million first annual installs [0]. There is also a
         | 3-year free on-ramp period. In addition, between 10 and 50
         | million Euro yearly revenue, the CTF is capped at 1 million
         | Euro.
         | 
         | [0] https://developer.apple.com/help/app-store-
         | connect/distribut...
        
           | grishka wrote:
           | That's sure a step in the right direction but it still feels
           | like a very unjustified form of rent-seeking. Ideally it
           | should be possible to distribute an iOS app without paying a
           | single cent to Apple and without any Apple involvement
           | whatsoever. Same way you can distribute Android apps right
           | now.
        
             | layer8 wrote:
             | I agree, but apparently it's good enough for the EU.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-19 23:02 UTC)