Apple legal battles

This week on Cult of Mac’s podcast: Now that Apple set a date for WWDC24, it’s time for the speculation to begin. Artificial intelligence undoubtedly will be on the agenda. But what will Apple’s AI push look like?

Join us for a whirlwind discussion.

Also on The CultCast:

• Sounds like iOS 18 will give iPhone owners even more control over their Home Screens.
• A flaw in Apple’s M-series processors sounds downright disturbing.
• Apple’s got a trick up its sleeve to keep you from annoying iPhone upgrades.
• And the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Apple makes some truly ludicrous claims.

Listen to this week’s episode of The CultCast in the Podcasts app or your favorite podcast app. (Be sure to subscribe and leave us a review if you like it!) Or watch the video live stream, embedded below.

March 26, 2010: Apple pays up to settle a trademark dispute with Japanese multinational Fujitsu over the name “iPad” in the United States.

It comes two months after Steve Jobs first showed off the iPad, and around a week before the tablet will land in stores. As it happens, it’s not the first time Apple battled over the name for one of its new products.

The European Commission opened a noncompliance investigation Monday into whether Apple is fully following the rules that went into effect with the EU’s Digital Markets Act. If not, Apple faces potentially heavy fines.

The Mac-maker isn’t being singled out. The EC also opened similar investigations into Alphabet/Google and Meta/Facebook.

The Department of Justice’s monumental Apple antitrust case appears weak.

Still, the civil lawsuit, filed Thursday, represents the biggest legal challenge to Apple’s power in the company’s 47-year history. If successful, the lawsuit could force Apple to fundamentally change the way it makes products and conducts business. A similar action against Microsoft in the 1990s significantly curtailed that company’s reach and power.

But the DOJ’s lawsuit against Apple appears to be based on old and outdated information, and Apple has already — or is about to — address most of the major concerns.

The Department of Justice and 16 state attorneys general filed an blockbuster antitrust lawsuit Thursday aimed at forcing Apple to open up many aspects of its ecosystem, from the App Store to Apple Watch.

The 88-page civil suit, which accuses Apple of wielding monopoly-like power, could bring truly sweeping changes to iPhone, Mac and other Apple computers.

A U.S. federal judge gave a go-ahead to a class action lawsuit accusing Apple’s AirTag of being “the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers.”

Apple argues that it designed the product to discourage stalkers.

March 14, 1994: Apple introduces the Power Macintosh 7100, a midrange Mac that will become memorable for two reasons.

The first is that it is among the first Macs to use new PowerPC processors. The second is that it results in Apple getting taken to court by astronomer Carl Sagan — not once but twice.

Epic Games can release Fortnite in the EU and open an App Store rival after Apple restored the company’s developer account. This came as the European Commission was starting an inquiry into why the account had been cancelled.

Apple called Epic Games “untrustworthy” when it pulled the account.

Apple is building a way out of the iOS “walled garden.” It promised on Thursday to make it easier to switch the data from an iPhone to an Android or other handset.

That said, the migration tool is part of Apple complying with the European Union’s Digital Market Act so the solution might not be available outside of the EU.

Epic Games will not be able to bring Fortnite back to the European Union. Apple canceled the company’s developer account (again) and called Epic “verifiably untrustworthy.”

Shutting down the developer account also means that the game-maker won’t be able to open its promised rival to the App Store.

The European Commission fined Apple more than 1.8 billion euros Monday for “abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps.”

The ruling follows complaints by music streaming service Spotify. In a lengthy response to the fine, Apple said Spotify pays absolutely nothing for the array of services Cupertino provides. Apple also said it will appeal the EC’s decision.

Apple changed course and is not disabling iPhone web apps in the European Union. The method for turning websites into applications will not disappear with the release is iOS 17.4 after all.

The flip-flop is just a small aspect of big changes coming to iOS because of EU legislation.

Are you familiar with iPhone web apps? No? Turns out you aren’t alone. Apple admitted that the method for turning websites into applications never caught on.

It must have been a tough admission, given that Steve Jobs’ original plan for iPhone was that it would only support web apps, with no native third-party applications allowed.

A noted Apple critic used the terms “malicious compliance” and “hot garbage” to describe the elaborate rules the company laid down Thursday for allowing European iPhone users to sideload applications.

Those blasts came from Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games, a company that’s locked in a legal battle with Apple over App Store rules. But other devs also cast aspersions on Apple’s framework for setting up App Store rivals. They pointed out that the new system comes with a huge financial obligation, and that it will make free apps almost impossible.

To be clear, though, not all developers are unhappy. Apple’s new rules also drew some compliments.

Apple is bringing sideloading and alternate app stores to the iPhone — but with significant restrictions.

Apple gave EU developers guidelines and access to the tools needed for sideloading —  installing applications that don’t go through the App Store. But the new rules require these apps to be approved by Apple before they can be installed by iPhone users. And they need to be in alternative marketplaces, not directly available for download.

In other words, sideloading won’t be the free-for-all some people had hoped.

This is part of sweeping changes to iOS, Safari and the App Store required by the European Union’s Digital Markets Act. And Apple’s announcement of these changes in Thursday is loaded with warning about how sideloading brings risks for users.

Although the European Union requires Apple to allow sideloading of iPhone applications, Cupertino reportedly hopes to review apps before they become available for installation from outside the App Store.

Apple also expects developers to voluntarily send a percentage of all revenue generated through sideloaded iOS applications.

Some Apple Watch owners might be hesitant about installing the just-released watchOS 10.3 update over concerns that it’ll remove the controversial Blood Oxygen application. But there’s no reason for concern — it does not.

We tested multiple devices to be extra sure.

With the Apple Watch sales ban back, Apple has decided to sell its latest smartwatches without blood oxygen monitoring in the U.S. The tweaked Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 models went go on sale starting January 18 across the company’s online and retail stores.

The Cupertino giant is not making any hardware tweaks to the wearables. Instead, it will turn off the blood oxygen sensor feature through software.

Apple lost a court appeal Wednesday, which means Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 might once again get pulled from U.S. store shelves. The court agrees with previous rulings that the wearables are in violation of a patent held by a medical-device company.

But Apple has a workaround: it’s almost certainly going to remove the application at the center of the patent dispute.

Following the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear appeals in the Epic Games v. Apple lawsuit, Apple is making significant changes to its U.S. App Store guidelines.

Developers can now link to an external in-app payment method. However, they still will need to pay Apple a commission of 12% to 27% on these transactions. And the mechanism for allowing such external payments might prove so onerous that developers take a pass.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney called it a “bad-faith ‘compliance’ plan” Tuesday — and vowed that his company will contest Apple’s plan in District Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court effectively upheld a lower court’s ruling that Apple must allow third-party iPhone app developers to point customers to their websites when making purchases. This means the company is forced to drop its “anti-steering” rule for such applications — a major change.

It’s the primary result of Apple’s long-running legal battle with Epic Games.

Apple will temporarily halt sales of Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2 starting December 21. This is the result of a decision made by the International Trade Commission that the wearables infringe on patents held by two medical device-makers.

Apple argues that the companies are “patent trolls,” but it’s not that simple. And the question now is whether Apple will pay to license the patents, or if it will continue to fight in court.

November 13, 2013: Apple and Samsung head back to court to determine how much the Korean company must pay for copying the iPhone.

Cupertino asks Samsung for $379 million in damages for ripping off key iPhone technical and design features. Apple arrives at that number based on estimated lost profits, royalty rates and the $3.5 billion worth of copyright-infringing devices Samsung sold during the period in question.

Bans on Apple Watch imports and sales could take effect the day after Christmas unless President Joe Biden steps in, after the International Trade Commission ruled Thursday that Apple infringed on medical technology patents held by Masimo Corp. and its sibling company, Cercacor Laboratories.

So unless the president vetoes the bans or Apple somehow strikes a deal in a fight that has dragged on for years — neither seems likely — most Apple Watches could go off the market because some of their components violate patents.

The California Institute of Technology got what it wanted out of a years-long patent-infringement lawsuit against Broadcom and (peripherally) Apple. Caltech filed paperwork in a California court dismissing its case.

It’s not clear at this point whether or how much Broadcom and Apple paid the university as part of a settlement. It could be hundreds of millions, though.