Cydia's Antitrust Case Against Apple Can Proceed, Judge Rules - Slashdot

Cydia's Antitrust Case Against Apple Can Proceed, Judge Rules

›

• Apple fixed the security holes. How is this wrong doing by Apple?

  Yeah, Cydia is on pretty shaky ground with that argument. Just because I've previously been able to set up camp in your unoccupied vacation home's yard doesn't mean you've violated any of my rights by installing a fence.

  If Cydia wants to make the argument that Apple is behaving in an anti-competitive manner by refusing to allow 3rd party app stores on iOS, that's the argument they should be making. Saying "I used to be able to do what I wanted when your security was more lax" just sounds too much like the argument of a petulant child whose parents just found their cigarette stash.

  No, it's actually a pretty smart argument, assuming I'm understanding correctly.

  The problem with the original case was that Apple's decision not to allow competing stores was made back in 2007, ostensibly, and they had been operating for a decade in spite of that, so the statute of limitations for that initial anticompetitive act had expired.

  By showing that the harm was caused by an ongoing pattern of actions on Apple's part, rather than just a single act, the statute of limitations period begins from the most recent action by Apple that Cydia claims was anticompetitive, which, being more recent, would then still be eligible for legal action.

  At least I *think* that's the argument.

  • Re:

    So their argument is that because Apple didn't fix the something that they never intend sooner, that Apple should somehow be obligated to never fix the issue? Because that's what the argument about suggesting there should be a statute of limitations seems to amount to.

    • > something that they never intend

      This "intention" is based on their decision to ban competing stores, which is argued to be anticompetitive, but beyond the statue of limitations. Each act in pursuit of that intention is distinctly and equally anticompetitive.

      They don't just get a pass in perpetuity because they ran out the clock on the setting an unlawful policy.

      But I'm not going to argue or decide the case so we shall have to wait and see.

      • Re:

        That doesn't make any sense to me. IANAL, but it was my understanding that the clock doesn't start ticking until there is actual injury / the injury is discovered. Without actual injury, what claim could Cydia have made anyway?

    • Re:

      No, the argument is that because Apple's actions, some which harmed Cydia's ability to operate on the platform, were ongoing, the statute of limitations should be tolled. It could reasonably be argued that Apple repeatedly figuring out which holes were used by the jailbreaking community and fixing them (even when those holes were not reported to Apple) was, in effect, a series of deliberate acts of ongoing harm against the jailbreaking community.

      I have no idea whether it will actually fly, mind you, given

      • Re:

        That's like arguing that teachers who discover cheaters and implement policies designed to catch those cheaters are harming the cheater community.

        Apple never wanted third party app stores, and made no secret about it.

        • Re:

          Why should it matter what Apple wants?

• Re: Patching security holes is an "overt act"?