Friday, May 21, 2021

Epic v. Apple, Day 14

Nick Statt:

CEO Tim Cook is up first thing tomorrow. But today we’re back with experts and third-party witnesses.

  • UCLA’s Dominique Hanssens
  • Ocean Tomo CEO James Malackowski
  • Aviel Rubin, JHU technical director

Adi Robertson:

Hanssens’ survey assessed how much iOS users relied on non-iOS devices on a regular basis, and what devices they had “available” but didn’t necessarily use, like devices family members had.


We are back onto the Microsoft OS smartphone question, and Apple’s lawyer is suggesting that maybe people have a newer Microsoft phone even if it doesn’t technically run a Microsoft OS. I’d guess she’s talking about the Android-powered Surface Duo.


Malackowski also looks at the steady rise of patents applied for and granted — wants to note that Apple has a “significant and sustained commitment” to innovation based on these two charts.


We’re looking at the Apple developer agreement, which Malackowski describes as an agreement by which developers are allowed to use Apple’s IP. There’s no fee to signing the license, he says. (There is a separate fee for putting an app on the App Store.)


Lawyer is asking Malackowski probing questions about whether Apple would really be giving up revenue from its IP under Epic’s demands, especially compared to, say, its hardware profits.


Forrest says Schiller denied what Epic believed was an “obvious point,” and Epic was scrambling to grab documents. “It came as a surprise to me that he would deny it so vehemently.” (“It” being that people were processing payments before IAP.)


We’re still debating whether Epic will get to add more testimony about in-app purchases, but Judge Rogers shuts it down. “Everybody knew what was going on, and the fairest thing is to leave the playing field as the playing field.”

Leah Nylen:

Malackowski says he looked at Epic’s requested relief: They are asking for a defacto compulsory licensing agreement without payment and it would harm innovation.


There does not exist a list what IP is being licensed subject to the DPLA, Moskowitz agrees. He also agrees that a licenses should generally include what is being licensed in it.


Rubin says he was asked to look at the app review process and the App Store distribution model and determine if they have an impact on security, privacy, reliability and trustworthiness.


Apple’s app store review and centralized distribution model offers “significant benefits,” Rubin says. There are lower infection rates of malware and a lower volume of infectious apps in the App Store, he says.


YGR asks: couldn’t that be because there are more Android devices. Rubin says there are 3x as many Androids as iPhones. You’d expect there to be about 5 percent of devices infected then not 26 percent.


1 Comment RSS · Twitter

"There is a separate fee for putting an app on the App Store."

Tsss tsss. The fee is to distribute software on Apple platforms even outside the App Stores without Apple suggesting to your users that your application is a malware.

Leave a Comment