Epic(虚幻引擎开发商)输掉了针对苹果的反垄断诉讼
正文翻译
Epic Games has suffered another setback as it loses its appeal against Apple''s "overbearing" App Store policies. A three-judge apxt panel says that the lower courts were correct in their ruling that keeps Apple''s distribution platform mostly status quo. However, the across-the-board decision still leaves Cupertino having to allow external payment systems – an order Apple may still try to appeal.
Epic Games再次遭遇挫折，因为它失去了对苹果“霸道”的App Store政策的上诉。一个由三名法官组成的小组表示，下级法院的裁决是正确的，该裁决使Apple的分发平台基本保持现状。然而，全面的决定仍然让苹果不得不允许外部支付系统——苹果对此可能仍会尝试上诉。
Epic Games has suffered another setback as it loses its appeal against Apple''s "overbearing" App Store policies. A three-judge apxt panel says that the lower courts were correct in their ruling that keeps Apple''s distribution platform mostly status quo. However, the across-the-board decision still leaves Cupertino having to allow external payment systems – an order Apple may still try to appeal.
Epic Games再次遭遇挫折，因为它失去了对苹果“霸道”的App Store政策的上诉。一个由三名法官组成的小组表示，下级法院的裁决是正确的，该裁决使Apple的分发平台基本保持现状。然而，全面的决定仍然让苹果不得不允许外部支付系统——苹果对此可能仍会尝试上诉。
upxe (April 25): Shortly after publication an Epic Games spokesperson contacted us requesting we include a tweeted statement from CEO Tim Sweeney. Sweeney's comment seems to indicate Epic is working on an external platform for Fortnite or possibly other transactions.
发布后不久，Epic Games 发言人联系我们，要求我们加入CEO Tim Sweeney的推文声明。Sweeney的评论似乎表明Epic正在为《堡垒之夜》或可能的其他交易开发外部平台。
发布后不久，Epic Games 发言人联系我们，要求我们加入CEO Tim Sweeney的推文声明。Sweeney的评论似乎表明Epic正在为《堡垒之夜》或可能的其他交易开发外部平台。
The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld an early decision that Apple has not violated competition laws by booting Fortnite from the App Store. In September 2021, the lower courts ruled in Apple's favor in all but one of the 10 claims against it. The appellate panel agreed with the outcome, including the order that stated that Apple could not prevent developers from lixing to payment options outside of iOS, which was a sizable win for Epic.
美国第九巡回上诉法院维持了早期的裁决，即苹果从App Store中移除堡垒之夜并未违反竞争法。2021年9月，下级法院对针对Apple提出的10项索赔中只有一项作出了有利裁决。上诉法院同意判决，包括声明苹果不能阻止开发者链接到iOS之外的支付选项的命令，这对Epic来说是一个相当大的胜利。
美国第九巡回上诉法院维持了早期的裁决，即苹果从App Store中移除堡垒之夜并未违反竞争法。2021年9月，下级法院对针对Apple提出的10项索赔中只有一项作出了有利裁决。上诉法院同意判决，包括声明苹果不能阻止开发者链接到iOS之外的支付选项的命令，这对Epic来说是一个相当大的胜利。
The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the debate about how online stores operate is essential but noted that its job was not to decide on the matter. Its focus was solely on whether the lower court came up with a just decision based on precedent, and in the panel's opinion, it had.
第九巡回法院承认，关于在线商店如何运作的辩论至关重要，但指出其工作不是就此事做出决定。它的重点仅在于下级法院是否根据先例做出了公正的决定，而在专家组看来，它已经做出了。
第九巡回法院承认，关于在线商店如何运作的辩论至关重要，但指出其工作不是就此事做出决定。它的重点仅在于下级法院是否根据先例做出了公正的决定，而在专家组看来，它已经做出了。
"There is a lively and important debate about the role played in our economy and democracy by online transaction platforms with market power," the judges wrote in their ruling. "Our job as a federal court of appeals, however, is not to resolve that debate – nor could we even attempt to do so. Instead, in this decision, we faithfully applied existing precedent to the facts."
法官在他们的裁决中写道：“关于具有市场力量的在线交易平台在我们的经济和民主中所扮演的角色，存在着一场热烈而重要的辩论。” “然而，我们作为联邦上诉法院的工作不是解决这场辩论——我们甚至不能尝试这样做。相反，在这个决定中，我们忠实地将现有先例应用于事实。”
法官在他们的裁决中写道：“关于具有市场力量的在线交易平台在我们的经济和民主中所扮演的角色，存在着一场热烈而重要的辩论。” “然而，我们作为联邦上诉法院的工作不是解决这场辩论——我们甚至不能尝试这样做。相反，在这个决定中，我们忠实地将现有先例应用于事实。”
However, further appeals are still possible. Apple told Engadget that it is considering its options for getting the ruling forcing it to allow devs to use outside payment methods overturned.
然而，进一步的上诉仍然是可能的。Apple告诉Engadget，它正在考虑推翻强制其允许开发者使用外部支付方式的裁决的选项。
然而，进一步的上诉仍然是可能的。Apple告诉Engadget，它正在考虑推翻强制其允许开发者使用外部支付方式的裁决的选项。
"Today's decision reaffirms Apple's resounding victory in this case, with nine of ten claims having been decided in Apple's favor," a spokesperson said. "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling on the one remaining claim under state law and are considering further review."
一位发言人说：“今天的裁决再次证明了苹果公司在这起案件中的巨大胜利，十项索赔中有九项对苹果公司有利。” “我们恭敬地不同意法院根据州法律对剩余的一项索赔作出的裁决，并正在考虑进一步审查。”
一位发言人说：“今天的裁决再次证明了苹果公司在这起案件中的巨大胜利，十项索赔中有九项对苹果公司有利。” “我们恭敬地不同意法院根据州法律对剩余的一项索赔作出的裁决，并正在考虑进一步审查。”
Epic started the fight in 2020 by blatantly violating Apple's guidelines in offering Fortnite players an alternative means of making in-game purchases. Apple responded as expected by kicking the uber-popular battle royale game out of the App Store. Google followed suit shortly after, and despite the lawsuit's status in the US, moods are shifting toward more open ecosystems.
Epic在2020年开始了这场战斗，公然违反了苹果的指导方针，为堡垒之夜玩家提供了另一种进行游戏内购买的方式。正如预期的那样，苹果将这款超级流行的大逃杀游戏从App Store中移除。不久之后，谷歌也效仿了，尽管诉讼在美国进行，但人们的情绪正在转向更开放的生态系统。
Epic在2020年开始了这场战斗，公然违反了苹果的指导方针，为堡垒之夜玩家提供了另一种进行游戏内购买的方式。正如预期的那样，苹果将这款超级流行的大逃杀游戏从App Store中移除。不久之后，谷歌也效仿了，尽管诉讼在美国进行，但人们的情绪正在转向更开放的生态系统。
Pressure from regulators outside the US might bring about more change than Epic's US lawsuit can. While US courts eventually approved Apple's motion to delay lowering the App Store restrictions on external payment systems, heat from international regulators has forced it to relax those same policies. Recent rumors also indicate that Apple might even allow sideloading in the next major upxe to iOS. Google has been placating overseas regulators similarly.
来自美国以外监管机构的压力可能会带来 比Epic在美国的诉讼所能带来的更多变化。虽然美国法院最终批准了苹果推迟降低App Store对外部支付系统限制的动议，但来自国际监管机构的热议迫使其放宽了同样的政策。最近的流言还表明，苹果甚至可能会在iOS的下一次重大更新中允许侧载(即不经过Apple Store安装APP--译注)。谷歌一直在以类似的方式安抚海外监管机构。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
来自美国以外监管机构的压力可能会带来 比Epic在美国的诉讼所能带来的更多变化。虽然美国法院最终批准了苹果推迟降低App Store对外部支付系统限制的动议，但来自国际监管机构的热议迫使其放宽了同样的政策。最近的流言还表明，苹果甚至可能会在iOS的下一次重大更新中允许侧载(即不经过Apple Store安装APP--译注)。谷歌一直在以类似的方式安抚海外监管机构。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
评论翻译
------------------------
psycros
Wow, as if we needed any further proof that federal courts are bought and paid for. "Our job as a federal court of appeals, however, is not to resolve that debate – nor could we even attempt to do so." LOL! The federal courts routinely overreach and legislate from the bench, to such a degree that they've helped push America to the brink of civil war. "Instead, in this decision, we faithfully applied existing precedent to the facts." What facts, other than the fact they've ruled in favor of a monopoly repeatedly? In no other industry could a company get away with what Apple does.
哇，好像我们需要任何进一步的证据来证明联邦法院是被收买似的。“然而，我们作为联邦上诉法院的工作不是解决这场辩论——我们甚至不能尝试这样做。” 哈哈！联邦法院经常在法官席上越权和立法，以至于他们帮助将美国推向了内战的边缘。“相反，在这个决定中，我们忠实地将现有先例应用于事实。” 除了他们一再裁定支持垄断的事实之外，还有什么事实？在其他行业中，没有一家公司能像苹果那样逃脱惩罚。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
psycros
Wow, as if we needed any further proof that federal courts are bought and paid for. "Our job as a federal court of appeals, however, is not to resolve that debate – nor could we even attempt to do so." LOL! The federal courts routinely overreach and legislate from the bench, to such a degree that they've helped push America to the brink of civil war. "Instead, in this decision, we faithfully applied existing precedent to the facts." What facts, other than the fact they've ruled in favor of a monopoly repeatedly? In no other industry could a company get away with what Apple does.
哇，好像我们需要任何进一步的证据来证明联邦法院是被收买似的。“然而，我们作为联邦上诉法院的工作不是解决这场辩论——我们甚至不能尝试这样做。” 哈哈！联邦法院经常在法官席上越权和立法，以至于他们帮助将美国推向了内战的边缘。“相反，在这个决定中，我们忠实地将现有先例应用于事实。” 除了他们一再裁定支持垄断的事实之外，还有什么事实？在其他行业中，没有一家公司能像苹果那样逃脱惩罚。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
------------------------
WhiteLeaff
You have to see what brand the judges' devices are. If there's an infamous fruit behind it, everyone involved should go to jail.
你得看看评委的设备是什么牌子的。如果背后有一个臭名昭著的水果，所有相关人员都应该进监狱。
WhiteLeaff
You have to see what brand the judges' devices are. If there's an infamous fruit behind it, everyone involved should go to jail.
你得看看评委的设备是什么牌子的。如果背后有一个臭名昭著的水果，所有相关人员都应该进监狱。
------------------------
DSirius
I think Apple shoot itself on both foots with this trial. This win is more damaging than a loss. In many nations culture there is a word which describe a winning which will prove a hard loss at the end. Is a combination of both words: win+loose=woose.
Congratulation to Apple, they realy "woose'' this fight.
In greek culture this is called a Pyrrhic victory and the real winners are consumers and Epic.
我认为苹果公司在这次诉讼中搬起石头砸自己的脚。这场胜利比失败更具破坏性。在许多国家的文化中，有一个词描述了胜利最终将证明是一场惨痛的失败。是两个词的组合：win+loose=woose。
恭喜苹果，他们真的“赢得”了这场战斗。
在希腊文化中，这被称为得不偿失的胜利，真正的赢家是消费者和Epic。
DSirius
I think Apple shoot itself on both foots with this trial. This win is more damaging than a loss. In many nations culture there is a word which describe a winning which will prove a hard loss at the end. Is a combination of both words: win+loose=woose.
Congratulation to Apple, they realy "woose'' this fight.
In greek culture this is called a Pyrrhic victory and the real winners are consumers and Epic.
我认为苹果公司在这次诉讼中搬起石头砸自己的脚。这场胜利比失败更具破坏性。在许多国家的文化中，有一个词描述了胜利最终将证明是一场惨痛的失败。是两个词的组合：win+loose=woose。
恭喜苹果，他们真的“赢得”了这场战斗。
在希腊文化中，这被称为得不偿失的胜利，真正的赢家是消费者和Epic。
------------------------
brucek
LOL. Sign of the times.
哈哈。时代的标志。
brucek
LOL. Sign of the times.
哈哈。时代的标志。
------------------------
rmcrys
I don't understand the comments against Apple, it's pretty straightforward:
1) I created a city (iOS platform)
2) inside that city I built a mall (store) and take care that the foundations are good and work (code)
3) I rent a store from that mall and I expect to be paid for it. Instead of a fixed price that would be unfair for the small business, the rent is a percentage of the gains: you win little, pay little; win much with us, we all win and have the incentive to go further. The only point that it should be changed is the maximum amount Apple could demand: why should Apple win millions from one app? Their work is not more or less when for example epic earns 500k or 5m
You all really think epic is on the right to use Apple's work for free?! Epic won millions on Apple's platform, they should pay their share. They just want to use and abuse?! Nop, no right.
Epic is completely free to build their own phone and tablet, their software and install their store; they want to use Apple, Google or someone else's business? Pay.
Steam: they built SteamOS and Steam Deck.
At the end it seems obvious that they just want to come and win using other's work.
我不明白针对Apple的评论，这很简单：
1）我创建了一个城市（iOS 平台）
2）在那个城市里我建了一个商场（商店）并注意基础良好和工作（代码）
3) 我从那个商场租了一家商店，我希望能得到报酬。租金不是对小企业不公平的固定价格，而是收益的一定百分比：你赢的少，付出的少；和我们双赢，我们都赢了，才有动力走得更远。唯一应该改变的是苹果可以要求的最高金额：苹果为什么要从一个应用程序中赢得数百万美元？例如，当Epic赚取50万或5百万时，他们的工作不会或增加或减少。
你们真的认为Epic有权免费使用苹果的东西吗？！Epic在Apple的平台上赢得了数百万，他们应该支付他们的份额。他们只是想利用和压榨？！不，这样不对。
Epic可以完全免费构建自己的手机和平板电脑、自己的软件并安装自己的商店；他们想使用Apple、Google或其他人的业务？那就付钱。
Steam：他们构建了SteamOS和Steam Deck。
最后很明显，他们只是想来使用其他人的工作来取胜。
rmcrys
I don't understand the comments against Apple, it's pretty straightforward:
1) I created a city (iOS platform)
2) inside that city I built a mall (store) and take care that the foundations are good and work (code)
3) I rent a store from that mall and I expect to be paid for it. Instead of a fixed price that would be unfair for the small business, the rent is a percentage of the gains: you win little, pay little; win much with us, we all win and have the incentive to go further. The only point that it should be changed is the maximum amount Apple could demand: why should Apple win millions from one app? Their work is not more or less when for example epic earns 500k or 5m
You all really think epic is on the right to use Apple's work for free?! Epic won millions on Apple's platform, they should pay their share. They just want to use and abuse?! Nop, no right.
Epic is completely free to build their own phone and tablet, their software and install their store; they want to use Apple, Google or someone else's business? Pay.
Steam: they built SteamOS and Steam Deck.
At the end it seems obvious that they just want to come and win using other's work.
我不明白针对Apple的评论，这很简单：
1）我创建了一个城市（iOS 平台）
2）在那个城市里我建了一个商场（商店）并注意基础良好和工作（代码）
3) 我从那个商场租了一家商店，我希望能得到报酬。租金不是对小企业不公平的固定价格，而是收益的一定百分比：你赢的少，付出的少；和我们双赢，我们都赢了，才有动力走得更远。唯一应该改变的是苹果可以要求的最高金额：苹果为什么要从一个应用程序中赢得数百万美元？例如，当Epic赚取50万或5百万时，他们的工作不会或增加或减少。
你们真的认为Epic有权免费使用苹果的东西吗？！Epic在Apple的平台上赢得了数百万，他们应该支付他们的份额。他们只是想利用和压榨？！不，这样不对。
Epic可以完全免费构建自己的手机和平板电脑、自己的软件并安装自己的商店；他们想使用Apple、Google或其他人的业务？那就付钱。
Steam：他们构建了SteamOS和Steam Deck。
最后很明显，他们只是想来使用其他人的工作来取胜。
------------------------
maladaptiv
That would be truth, if it was possible to install third party software to Apple phones. Which isnt. The only way to install anything is via their app store. And that means you are forced to be in their store. Thats monopoly.
如果可以在Apple手机上安装第三方软件，你说的就是事实。但其实不是。安装任何东西的唯一方法是通过他们的应用商店。这意味着您被迫进入他们的商店。那就是垄断。
maladaptiv
That would be truth, if it was possible to install third party software to Apple phones. Which isnt. The only way to install anything is via their app store. And that means you are forced to be in their store. Thats monopoly.
如果可以在Apple手机上安装第三方软件，你说的就是事实。但其实不是。安装任何东西的唯一方法是通过他们的应用商店。这意味着您被迫进入他们的商店。那就是垄断。
------------------------
GhostLegion
Except on the Steam deck you have choice, I'm free at a minimum to install another OS and if SteamOS allows use of Flatpaks (I don't know the answer to this one) then I can install alternate storefronts as well.
除了在Steam deck上之外你还有其他选择，我至少可以免费安装另一个操作系统，如果SteamOS允许使用Flatpaks（我不知道这个的答案）那么我也可以安装备用店面。
GhostLegion
Except on the Steam deck you have choice, I'm free at a minimum to install another OS and if SteamOS allows use of Flatpaks (I don't know the answer to this one) then I can install alternate storefronts as well.
除了在Steam deck上之外你还有其他选择，我至少可以免费安装另一个操作系统，如果SteamOS允许使用Flatpaks（我不知道这个的答案）那么我也可以安装备用店面。
------------------------
Kotters
That's not how it's worked for decades. Just because you have control over the software running on your own products doesn't mean you have anything resembling a monopoly.
Every video game console has done literally the same thing.
几十年来不是这样运作的。仅仅因为您可以控制在您自己的产品上运行的软件，并不意味着您拥有类似垄断的权利。
每个视频游戏机都在做同样的事情。
Kotters
That's not how it's worked for decades. Just because you have control over the software running on your own products doesn't mean you have anything resembling a monopoly.
Every video game console has done literally the same thing.
几十年来不是这样运作的。仅仅因为您可以控制在您自己的产品上运行的软件，并不意味着您拥有类似垄断的权利。
每个视频游戏机都在做同样的事情。
------------------------
kiwigraeme
Didn't Apple take Samsung just down the road from a huge Apple employment area to court - Naturally local people on jury will favour USA company and huge local employer - Jury system in USA for complex civil matters is super weird
From comments on TS imagine a Chinese company vs Apple case in The USA - I'm sure it will be real fair /s
苹果不是把三星从一个有巨大的苹果就业人员的地方带到法庭上吗 - 陪审团中的当地人自然会支持美国公司和庞大的当地雇主 - 美国复杂民事案件的陪审团制度非常奇怪。
根据我们网站上的评论，想象一下如果在美国一家中国公司与Apple的官司——我相信这将是真正公平的(讽刺)。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
kiwigraeme
Didn't Apple take Samsung just down the road from a huge Apple employment area to court - Naturally local people on jury will favour USA company and huge local employer - Jury system in USA for complex civil matters is super weird
From comments on TS imagine a Chinese company vs Apple case in The USA - I'm sure it will be real fair /s
苹果不是把三星从一个有巨大的苹果就业人员的地方带到法庭上吗 - 陪审团中的当地人自然会支持美国公司和庞大的当地雇主 - 美国复杂民事案件的陪审团制度非常奇怪。
根据我们网站上的评论，想象一下如果在美国一家中国公司与Apple的官司——我相信这将是真正公平的(讽刺)。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
------------------------
Nobina
Well if EU makes Apple allow sideloading like they always should've this won't be an issue.
好吧，如果欧盟让苹果像他们一直应该的那样允许侧载，这将不是问题。
Nobina
Well if EU makes Apple allow sideloading like they always should've this won't be an issue.
好吧，如果欧盟让苹果像他们一直应该的那样允许侧载，这将不是问题。
------------------------
GoldenGoat
In your city example, there would be nothing to stop people from going to a mall in the next city down the road and then bringing back the items they bought from that other city. This means your city's mall has competition. Apple is blocking this. They are the only mall allowed in the world and you can't bring products into their city from anywhere else. See the difference?
I agree with you though that it doesn't make sense for Epic to use the Apple app store and not have to pay them. That is what the court decided though. I don't get it either. But I also don't think you should have to make your own device just to be allowed to run an app store.
在您的城市示例中，没有什么可以阻止人们去沿途下一个城市的购物中心，然后带回他们从另一个城市购买的物品。这意味着您所在城市的购物中心存在竞争。苹果正在阻止这一点。他们是世界上唯一允许的购物中心，您不能将产品从其他任何地方带入他们的城市。看到不同了吗？
我同意你的看法，但Epic使用苹果应用商店而不需要付费是没有意义的。但这就是法院的决定。我也不明白。但我也不认为你必须制造自己的设备才能被允许运行应用程序商店。
GoldenGoat
In your city example, there would be nothing to stop people from going to a mall in the next city down the road and then bringing back the items they bought from that other city. This means your city's mall has competition. Apple is blocking this. They are the only mall allowed in the world and you can't bring products into their city from anywhere else. See the difference?
I agree with you though that it doesn't make sense for Epic to use the Apple app store and not have to pay them. That is what the court decided though. I don't get it either. But I also don't think you should have to make your own device just to be allowed to run an app store.
在您的城市示例中，没有什么可以阻止人们去沿途下一个城市的购物中心，然后带回他们从另一个城市购买的物品。这意味着您所在城市的购物中心存在竞争。苹果正在阻止这一点。他们是世界上唯一允许的购物中心，您不能将产品从其他任何地方带入他们的城市。看到不同了吗？
我同意你的看法，但Epic使用苹果应用商店而不需要付费是没有意义的。但这就是法院的决定。我也不明白。但我也不认为你必须制造自己的设备才能被允许运行应用程序商店。
------------------------
GoldenGoat
The court claims to be following precedence, but microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust for including a web browser with their operating system. Apple includes a web browser, blocks competing browser engines, blocks competing app stores, blocks competing arcades, blocks competing payment systems. But it's ok because it's not the courts job to resolve disputes. Just wow.
法院声称遵循先例，但发现微软因在其操作系统中包含网络浏览器而违反了反垄断法。苹果包括一个网络浏览器，阻止竞争的浏览器引擎，阻止竞争的应用程序商店，阻止竞争的商场，阻止竞争的支付系统。但这没关系，因为解决纠纷不是法院的职责。哇哦。
GoldenGoat
The court claims to be following precedence, but microsoft was found to be in violation of antitrust for including a web browser with their operating system. Apple includes a web browser, blocks competing browser engines, blocks competing app stores, blocks competing arcades, blocks competing payment systems. But it's ok because it's not the courts job to resolve disputes. Just wow.
法院声称遵循先例，但发现微软因在其操作系统中包含网络浏览器而违反了反垄断法。苹果包括一个网络浏览器，阻止竞争的浏览器引擎，阻止竞争的应用程序商店，阻止竞争的商场，阻止竞争的支付系统。但这没关系，因为解决纠纷不是法院的职责。哇哦。
------------------------
ellmewhy
The code, when in run-time mode, is no longer in the property of the author of the code, but in the property of the owner of the hardware running the code. Apple owns the operating system code (the text) but not the executable state of the operating system code, so it cannot make rules over other people's property.
For example, Epic has ownership in the code (text) of the unreal engine, but Epic has no jurisdiction within other people's games made with the unreal engine, they can't for example put a legal condition that they can't make rpg games with the unreal engine. In the same way that Apple can't legally enforce rules when the operating system code is in run-time mode.
If someone rents you a car they can't put restrictions in the contract about on what areas you allowed to go with the car, it's a violation of personality, privacy and free expression and possible many other criminal things...
“Maybe” the contract laws allow it but it's a criminal offense.
当处于运行时模式时，代码不再属于代码作者的财产，而是属于运行代码的硬件所有者的财产。苹果拥有操作系统代码（文本），但不拥有操作系统代码的可执行状态，因此它无法对他人的财产制定规则。
例如，Epic对虚幻引擎的代码（文本）拥有所有权，但Epic对其他人用虚幻引擎制作的游戏没有管辖权，例如他们不能提出不能制作rpg游戏的法律条件使用虚幻引擎。就像当操作系统代码处于运行时模式时苹果无法合法地执行规则一样。
如果有人租给你一辆车，他们不能在合同中限制你可以驾车去哪些地方，这是对人格、隐私和言论自由的侵犯，可能还有许多其他犯罪行为……
“也许”合同法允许这样做，但这是一种刑事犯罪。
ellmewhy
The code, when in run-time mode, is no longer in the property of the author of the code, but in the property of the owner of the hardware running the code. Apple owns the operating system code (the text) but not the executable state of the operating system code, so it cannot make rules over other people's property.
For example, Epic has ownership in the code (text) of the unreal engine, but Epic has no jurisdiction within other people's games made with the unreal engine, they can't for example put a legal condition that they can't make rpg games with the unreal engine. In the same way that Apple can't legally enforce rules when the operating system code is in run-time mode.
If someone rents you a car they can't put restrictions in the contract about on what areas you allowed to go with the car, it's a violation of personality, privacy and free expression and possible many other criminal things...
“Maybe” the contract laws allow it but it's a criminal offense.
当处于运行时模式时，代码不再属于代码作者的财产，而是属于运行代码的硬件所有者的财产。苹果拥有操作系统代码（文本），但不拥有操作系统代码的可执行状态，因此它无法对他人的财产制定规则。
例如，Epic对虚幻引擎的代码（文本）拥有所有权，但Epic对其他人用虚幻引擎制作的游戏没有管辖权，例如他们不能提出不能制作rpg游戏的法律条件使用虚幻引擎。就像当操作系统代码处于运行时模式时苹果无法合法地执行规则一样。
如果有人租给你一辆车，他们不能在合同中限制你可以驾车去哪些地方，这是对人格、隐私和言论自由的侵犯，可能还有许多其他犯罪行为……
“也许”合同法允许这样做，但这是一种刑事犯罪。
------------------------
ScottSoapbox
The court is wrong.
法院错了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
ScottSoapbox
The court is wrong.
法院错了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
很赞 2
收藏