a is epic games wide, which incorporates the trial against Apple – image: epic: epic Games
7 > Facebook reddit Bluesky
Apple should not change the rules of the apparatus in the long-term trial with EPIC, The trading group insists, as it insists on violating Apple's rights.
In April, the comprehensive EPIC VS Apple Process saw how the court authorized Apple for a deliberate violation of the judicial prohibition for 2021 to eliminate anti-binding barriers to third-party enterprises. As part of the Apple sanction, quite a few changes were ordered.
A list of requirements, which varies from not levying purchases for purchases outside the application, in order to stop limiting, as developers contribute to alternative payment options in their applications in order to allow developers to more freely use links in applications, among other measures.
Apple quickly did not agree with the decision, and, agreeing to compliance, insisted that this would appeal. On June 24, he filed in the 9th District Court to cancel an “overly punitive” mandate.
to help this appeal, computer & amp; Communications Industry Association (CCIA), Alongside Trade Association Netchoice, Has Stepped in File Anmicus Brief Supporting Apple ' S Appleal in the Matter.
, apparently, after the court prohibition will withstand Apple's rights for the first amendment.
The problem of free speech
47-page information ends to explain that Apple's rights to free reputation as a result of sanctions. This is largely because they, by the visible, limit how Apple can respond to content in applications created by developers.
For example, in the line of the court prohibition it says that Apple should “wear any speech of the developer, even if he misleads or humiliates Apple, due to external purchases.”
The reasoning that this is damaged by Apple rights to freedom of speech is that it does not allow Apple to set up any restrictions on the style, tongue, stream or placement of purchases outside the application.
Apple can also be forced to disseminate speech on its platform against its will, a brief presentation continues. In another link, when customers arrive at the cash desk on their own Apple platform, Apple “should allow unlimited purchases in other places.”
In a brief presentation, it is stated that the first amendment does not allow government entities to send private organizations to “place messages that he would prefer to exclude”, for example, the court against Apple.
continues to say that “more constitutionally insulting” for the company to cope with the exchange of messages that “condemn” themselves. ” The prescribed path is as problematic in accordance with the first amendment, as well as the law adopted by the legislative body, ”said the senior vice president of CCIA, chief of staff and director of CCIA Driection Center Stephanie Joyce. “The judicial ban against Apple contains restrictions on speech that deserve the most strict review.” Chooses. It is described as an international non -profit trade association representing communication and technological firms. Short, saying that Apple is not at all authority.
