AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Tim cook users who to sideload1/16/2024 ![]() The question in courts is whether such terms are fair and trustful considering that non agreement from users might cost them thousands of dollars … and potentially millions to devs. Same thing here.īoth users and dev agree or not with the terms of the sale. When you buy on Amazon you aren’t using Amazon IP, neither are sellers using theirs. ![]() In no way is devs or users using Apple IP for that matter. At most is the user licensing the dev the use of the App (its IP). Is Apple acting on their own IP to sell third parties IP and using material properties such as their devices to that effect. Devs or users aren’t licensing any Apple IP in such a transaction … its Apple providing a service. ![]() When Apple sells a third party App there is no intelectual property being used by the third party. The agreements change unilaterally because in effect user and devs have no agreement power in this space … but to leave their $properties$ behind … which is the same as having no power.ĭon’t understand. There seams to be no balance in this context due to the way Apple policies are being stacked. Furthermore if it’s found to be purposeful it may even be criminal while the other is just being smart right? What makes the second easier to ascertain reponsability between parties is due to its non abstraction nature. But if go to a restaurant and happen to suffer from food poison … oh … oh … oh. Is so abstract and malleable that can serve to justify anything including irresponsible behaviors.įor instance if I license you some intellectual property and happens to act against the ”buyer” … oh well it’s just intellectual property, you came to me for it, it was your decision. I understand the allure of concepts such as intellectual property to speculative markets. These issues are being conflated into one when are fundamentally independent … usually a sign of abuse of ones intelectual property over entities and genres of properties. Now you seam to be inclined that Apple is not selling apps rather than licensing the use of their IP. In particular their store is supposed to sell Apps as per their marketing spiel. The question courts is if Apple is abusing their intelectual property. The oddity in your thought is that intelectual property supersedes all other kinds of properties that are at play and being used. Material, digital, intelectual … and no one is denying Apple its properties by eventually wanting to install apps that may not be in its Store. I think all properties should be protected equally.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |