31–39 of 39 posts
If they violated rules previously and got booted (and then sued in a very public battle), why would they be allowed back?
Because Apple is legally required to remove the rule they violated.
And from Apple's perspective, Epic Games has breached their contract in the US so not sure why they would allow them back in the store until that issue is resolved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you're correct here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Epic is asking the ban to be undone, an appeal of the existing ban. The ban was for violating TOS, nevermind the TOS presumably has to change for the Korean market. I could see this going either way if it were argued in a US court, truthfully. I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other m…
This would simply open up a new antitrust lawsuit though, since it's pretty easy to connect the continued ban to 3rd party payments which Apple is now legally required to allow.
b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take.
Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rejecting an application for app store reinstatement would presumably be a new ban, legally speaking, and would be covered by the new law.
I don't think you're correct here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Epic is asking the ban to be undone, an appeal of the existing ban. The ban was for violating TOS, nevermind the TOS presumably has to change for the Korean market. I could see this going either way if it were argued in a US court, truthfully. I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other m…
If the law does not permit banning an app for allowing third party processing then I would expect Epic to have a good case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not spiteful to demand what is yours by right. Apple has been abusing their market position for years, and Korea is making legal inroads on fixing that situation. It is well that Epic should demand Apple follow this long overdue law.
I fully agree, but that doesn't change Epic's motivations one way or the other.
Does anyone have specific details on if the Korea law[0], which Epic is using as a basis for this request[1], has the ability to make apple reinstate Epic's account? Since the ban happened long before this law was even proposed, it wouldn't seem like the law would be retroactive. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28366063 1: https://twitter.com/FortniteGame/status/1436105346184056832
First, to understand how this law amendment was introduced, it's important to understand the original act, called the "TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS ACT" which is the main act regulating the sector. Article 50 of this act defines a list of prohibited acts by market participants, and the related Enforcement Decree prescribes a number of punitive measures the Korean Communication Commission is allowed to take against entities found in breach of Article 50 (the measures range from corrective orders to penalties).
Here is the original article:
Article 50 (Prohibited Acts)(1) No telecommunications business operator may engage in any of the following conduct (hereinafter referred to as "prohibited acts") which undermine or are likely to undermine fair competition or users' interests, or allow other telecommunications business operators or third parties to engage in such conduct: 1. Placing unfair or discriminatory conditions or restrictions on the provision of equipment, etc., joint utilization, joint use, interconnection or joint-use services, wholesale services, provision of information, etc.; 8. Unfairly restricting measures to delete any software unessential to implementing functions of a communications terminal device or measures equivalent thereto; or installing and operating or suggesting any software that unfairly restricts the installation of other software.
Korean:
9. 앱 마켓사업자가 모바일콘텐츠 등의 거래를 중개함에 있어 자기의 거래상의 지위를 부당하게 이용하여 모바일콘텐츠 등 제공사업자에게 특정한 결제방식을 강제하는 행위
10. 앱 마켓사업자가 모바일콘텐츠 등의 심사를 부당하게 지연하는 행위
11. 앱 마켓사업자가 앱 마켓에서 모바일콘텐츠 등을 부당하게 삭제하는 행위
9. For app market operators, abusing their dominant position as intermediary in mobile contents transactions to force upon the mobile content providers the usage of a designated (specific) payment method
10. For app market operators, unfairly and unduly delaying the review of mobile contents submitted to the marketplace [by mobile contents providers]
11. For app market operators , unfairly and unduly deleting mobile contents from the marketplace
1) All translation is mine.
2) I am not a lawyer.
3) I am only sharing this because I learned so much from the HN community and because I've repeatedly seen requests for details about this law.
4) The bill(Korean): https://likms.assembly.go.kr/filegate/sender36?dummy=dummy&b...
Telecommunications Business Act, with its Enforcement Decree (English): https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawTwoView.do?hseq=50189
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Apple is legally required to remove the rule they violated.
There is no law that says Apple has to allow developers in the App Store. And from Apple's perspective, Epic Games has breached their contract in the US so not sure why they would allow them back in the store until that issue is resolved.
>>tied selling
>https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tiedselling.asp
>>Tied selling may be used as a means of price discrimination in that it may help banks (or other companies) consolidate a customer's business within a single provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would simply open up a new antitrust lawsuit though, since it's pretty easy to connect the continued ban to 3rd party payments which Apple is now legally required to allow.
a) Apple has ~30% market share in South Korea. b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take. Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
If they violated rules previously and got booted (and then sued in a very public battle), why would they be allowed back?
Because Apple is legally required to remove the rule they violated.