Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that the trial (and the inevitable appeals) is going to leave its mark on the future of app stores and digital distribution. What started as a dispute over a random game turned into possibly the highest profile lawsuit Apple has had to fight. They made Tim Cook take the stand for the first time in his life. A lot of damaging PR was unearthed. Apple and others have already announced concessions for developers in the last few months (like cutting the rate to 15% for the first $1M in revenue, followed closely by Google who did the same). Antitrust investigations in the EU and other jurisdictions are picking up steam. This saga is far from over.

View on HN

It seems that this saga goes far beyond Apple. The bigger question this will probably lead to is to what extent operating systems/platforms/intellectual property fully belong to a person or entity. How much of it should be "shared" if at all? This will affect game consoles, ATMs, automobiles, and anything with an electronic circuit. It's a property rights conundrum fit for the 21st century.

Ben argues that even the Apple question is murky enough to make it impractical for regulation to step in. Expanding the question only muddies the waters even more. For any actual change to occur the underlying issue needs more focus and clarity. I would say follow the email trails and focus more specifically on Spotify, iBooks and conflict of interest

It’s impractical for the courts to regulate. Congress can pass laws about this sort of behaviour if they wish.

I doubt it's within Congress's ability or capability. In addition to property rights, this case also involves freedom of speech and association. Congress can't make any laws abridging Apple's freedoms at the expense of the consumer's/developer's or vice versa. The courts don't exist to regulate, they exist to interpret their impartial findings on the basis of current law. What's needed is an answer to these questions and there's no better place to do it than in the courts.

Marketplaces, even so-called private ones, can ultimately be under the purview of government. If Apple didn’t police scams, you can bet that the FTC would be involved. There are _definitely_ areas where government could interfere. It’s not necessarily inappropriate that the courts are unlikely to interfere in what is fundamentally a legislative responsibility.

The question of ownership will definitely have to be answered soon enough, as people who have been purchasing digital content over the last 20-30 years start to die. If my dad spent hundreds or thousands of dollars purchasing Beatles albums and memorabilia do I have the right to inherit it? Apple says no, but I bet courts in most jurisdictions will disagree.

We're also now reaching the point where the game consoles that first enabled purchasing games digitally are having their storefronts taken down, and suddenly everyone is realizing that their hundreds or even thousands of dollars in digital purchases can just be revoked on a whim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com