Hacker News Reader

Comment by belltaco | Hacker News Reader

And Techrights/BoycottNovell and Groklaw are the epitome of unbiased coverage and analysis? How about we read everything with a grain of salt rather than just ad hominem? Why not just cite what is wrong with the analysis in the article, if anything? I see numerous citations, maybe submit analysis that differs from a different lawyer?

View on HN

Florian Mueller has a long history of paid lying and clearly has skin in this game. I think that is important information to have presented. Importantly I also think his analysis is hardly convincing and one only needs to look to NYTimes, The Verge, NPR, CNN and the AP to see the exact opposite case presented.

Reported by journalists, not lawyers like the article.

And why is Tim Sweeney tweeting that he lost the court case?

He did lose the court case. He got none of his desires met, none of the goals he set out with met, and wasted a lot of money.

I'm not particularly sympathetic to his views, here, nor Apple, but if there was a "loser" here it would definitely be Epic.

Exactly. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for the rest of the commenters to understand that Apple winning 9/10 counts vs Epic winning 1/10 means that this is a huge win for Apple and a huge loss for Epic.

Apple is still entitled to some form of commission even if Epic or anyone else doesn't directly use IAP in their apps. Given that Epic admitted to violating the App Store guidelines, Apple is still barring them from the App Store.

Because it's really not a huge win for Apple, it's more of a huge loss because of what they lost on, and it's not really a huge loss for Epic, because iOS market revenue is meaningless in their operations.

Devs could, for example, charge a higher price if you buy it via the AppStore and a lower price if you complete the purchase on their website. It potentially removes a significant portion of Apple's cut for IAP. Apple also has to figure our how to collect the "commission", which could lead to devs not working with Apple in the future. Apple will have a hard time appealing because the appeals court could rule against them on the counts they already won on. That's why it's not seen as a huge win for Apple.

Epic has to pay a meaningless amount of money (a few million dollars they'll make back up in a few days) and is barred from a platform they didn't care about in the first place. Non-US regulators are also looking into Apple's handling of the AppStore, which means Apple could still be forced to make changes in line with what Epic was arguing. This is why it isn't a huge loss for Epic.

It is a huge win for Apple. They lost nothing and regardless if companies use IAP or not, Apple is still legally entitled to take the commission from the developers.

> Devs could, for example, charge a higher price if you buy it via the AppStore and a lower price if you complete the purchase on their website. It potentially removes a significant portion of Apple's cut for IAP.

Again, even if they charge a higher price on the IAP and lower on the website, Apple is still entitled to charge the commission regardless if they use IAP or not. The judgement clearly states that 'Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional' [0] (p68)

On Epic's side they lost the antitrust argument which was the whole point of filing this lawsuit. Apple already made the changes to mentioning links for paying outside of the App Store before this ruling was made.

Nothing has changed on the commission side for Apple and Epic still cannot allow their own billing system in Fortnite, thus they are still banned on the App Store even after admitting being in breach of the App Store rules and must pay for those damages. Meaningless or not.

So actually, Apple still wins and it is a huge win.

[0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-...

It's appealed, so this is a moot point.

Both Epic and Apple have the right to appeal. And your point is?

As it stands, Epic lost and Apple is still entitled to the commission even if you use IAP or not and regardless if you change the pricing on the website to be cheaper than the IAP.

Apple was not found to have broken anti-trust laws which was the basis of Epic's argument and Apple already addressed the anti-steering count before the decision of this lawsuit.

Either way, Apple is still getting paid and Apple still wins.

EDIT: Why did you delete your comment? Care to explain what was wrong with it?

   > You seem to be really invested in this in an unhealthy way.

That is the reality of the result of the lawsuit and it was a clear win for Apple, assuming you read the judgement on (p68).

It's not that hard to understand that is it?

Why do you think his analysis is incorrect?

The reality is that when you're trying to consume the firehose of information that is the internet, reading reliable sources that won't lie to you is very useful. Especially on subjects like law where there are a lot of subtleties and things that are outright wrong can sound very plausible.

I have no real opinion on the journalistic integrity of techrights, I do have opinions on groklaw being pretty close to the epitome of unbiased coverage (and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill...).

Even if your vague insinuations about techrights and groklaw did have foundation, it would still just be a "whataboutism" argument. Someone intentionally producing misinformation is wrong no matter how reliable other people are. The fact that foss patents was paid was literally in court, and is an admitted fact (I'm loathe to links to fosspatents blog directly, so here's a link to a news article reporting on it with direct quotes: https://web.archive.org/web/20160825043319/http://www.dailyt...)

If you think Techrights/BoycottNovell and Groklaw are not very slanted coverage then you're within the bubble and cannot see outside it. Also, one can be very slanted and biased without getting paid (rather no one can prove or disprove they got paid no one even knows the identify of the person(s) behind Groklaw).

Groklaw certainly had a variety of sincerely held opinions (so does everyone), and advocated for them. That's different from being paid to take a position that you don't believe in or making bad faith arguments.

The identity of who wrote Groklaw is known (Pamela Jones), and the accusations that they were a paid was disproven in court in the Oracle case.

Edit: And when I said advocated for them, I mean it in the legal sense as well as blogging about them: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/commen...

Ironically, this was the reason they gave the reason for hiding their identity under PJ and then later expanding it to a generic Pamela Jones since there are a lot of people under that name:

>In other words, I was hoping people could assume whatever they wanted and just focus on what I said, rather than on who was saying it. For that reason, I chose PJ, because it could be anyone, either sex, any nationality, anyone and no one in particular.

Maybe we should follow PJ's advice while reading the posted article.

Anyway, we are rehashing a discussion from the past.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7090812

In the interst of continuing to provide actual facts to this conversation:

Here is an article by Pamela Jones (ironically not on groklaw) discussing the lack of compensation for running groklaw: https://www.zdnet.com/article/letter-to-the-editor-no-ibm-gr...

Here is the court filing by IBM in which they deny that they paid groklaw (page 10): http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf

Not like IBM would ever lie in court.

https://www.theregister.com/2019/01/18/ibm_government_lying_...

And the other link is an assertion by an anonymous person that they're totally on the up and up. What would you expect if they were not, a confession? Would Florian Muller make a confession if he were anonymously posting as FM (Frank Matthew) while getting paid as a consultant? No one would ever know he was getting paid if we didn't know his real identity.

What's more likely? IBM lied to the court for no good reason (paying for shills is not illegal, just strange), the author of groklaw made up a name and later in life violated federal law by filing comments to UPTSO under it, other named lawyers worked with her on that. Or she really is named what she claims to be named?

You're inventing wild conspiracies that don't even have a good reason to exist.

>later in life violated federal law by filing comments to UPTSO under it

That "violation" means nothing.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/06/80-of-the-22-million-comme...

> The wholesale undermining of the processes of government earned fines of $3.7 million, $550,000 and $150,000 for Fluent Inc., React2Media and Opt-Intelligence, respectively. There are also “comprehensive reforms” imposed on them, though it may be best not to expect much from those.

I would suggest that just about no individual is interested in millions of dollars of fines...

If I read this properly, it also doesn't prohibit the possibility of criminal charges in that case either.

That case also didn't exist at the time, so didn't exist as precedent for believe that you might get off "lightly".

Those fines were all for faking millions of comments. You're talking about one. Where is the precedent in the FTC case for going after someone for one fake comment, and that too for putting an alias and not for other misrepresentation?

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-a-crime-to-use-a-di...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-legal-status-of-pseudonyms...

One would hope a competent paralegal would know that.

>and it was shown in court that the author of groklaw was not a paid shill..

The court didn't determine who paid for hosting and dev. They didn't examine her tax returns. They don't know her employer(s). Didn't examine her bank accounts. She could be the daughter or wife of an IBM lawyer and IBMs assertion in court would still be true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com