“ 小巨人差不多算係完敗.
基本上要求的東西近乎全落空, 惟一對 apple 不利的判決都只係令 apple 麻煩左, 未至於收唔倒錢”
佢要求嘅就係係3rd party payment procedure + 免30%抽佣
而家判“Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchase”
同你講嘅落差算唔算大呢？ 2中1 都可能解完全落空嘅
你睇咗一編article好buy唔代表全部人睇完都一樣
我都話
去apple fan page 搵多d article 嚟support
一定係apple 大勝
餓狼 發表於 2021-9-14 15:45 
「同你講嘅落差算唔算大呢？」
我(其實係篇報導) 係指出左個結果的實際意義及問題. 有乜野落差呢?
我係特登等幾日, 等 d 媒體撚完成份百幾頁的判詞的報導出的.
The Verge 亦唔係乜野 apple fan page.
佢之前唔同人寫的係 both side lost.... 判決當日出的.
我寫左乜野係錯?
篇報導所講是否正確?
如有不正確, 可以指出來嗎?
基本上 developer 係唔會走得甩 apple 果份的. apple 只係難左收 (你有可能呃倒佢).
First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by
which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual
property. Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It
would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission.
Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30%
rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation
for use of its intellectual property. As established in the prior sections, see supra Facts §§ II.C.,
V.A.2.b., V.B.2.c., Apple is entitled to license its intellectual property for a fee, and to further
guard against the uncompensated use of its intellectual property. The requirement of usage of
IAP accomplishes this goal in the easiest and most direct manner, whereas Epic Games’ only
proposed alternative would severely undermine it. Indeed, to the extent Epic Games suggests
that Apple receive nothing from in-app purchases made on its platform, such a remedy is
inconsistent with prevailing intellectual property law. |
簡體版
訂閱頻道
訂閱電子報
發表於 2021-9-14 15:46
| 
