Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

CTOnews.com, January 24 (Xinhua) Apple recently filed an antitrust appeal to the United Kingdom, arguing that there is a disagreement between the understanding of the word "shall" in the legal provisions and the British authorities. In fact, this is not the first time that Apple has picked words. In its last antitrust investigation, Apple highlighted the difference between the words "study" and "investigation" in the legal provisions.

CTOnews.com learned that the antitrust investigation into Apple mainly involves two aspects:

1. Apple bans cloud gaming services on App Store

This means that developers cannot provide cloud game-related applications on App Store. Some argue that the company is doing this to protect its share of gaming revenue and to prevent competition for its own Apple Arcade subscription gaming service.

two。 Only self-WebKit browser engine is allowed

Although Apple allows any developer to create their own web browser and put it on App Store, Apple only approves browsers that use its own WebKit rendering engine.

This makes it impossible for developers to make browser applications faster than Safari, and Apple has blocked third-party browsers from using services such as Apple Pay.

The Competition and Market Administration (CMA), the UK's competition watchdog, launched an investigation in June last year, and Apple argued in its latest antitrust filing that Apple and CMA had a misunderstanding of the word "shall".

Apple pointed out in the filing that CMA had missed the deadline for conducting antitrust investigations. British law requires the CMA to announce its investigation on the same day as the publication of the preliminary findings. But it was only later that CMA launched the investigation.

Apple believes that the "shall" in the legal provision should be understood as "must" (must), which means that the CMA is not in compliance with the investigation itself after the deadline. CMA believes that "shall" should be understood as "should", and CMA believes that it is possible to intervene in the investigation at a later time.

Foss Patent says it is not easy to solve the problem because both sides of the dispute have precedents.

The law firm Allen & Overy reported a decision of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), according to which "shall" was merely an expression of intention of the parties at the time of signing the contract.

Ashurst, another British law firm (which has so far succeeded in representing Uefa in the European Union antitrust case of the European Premier League), published a very enlightening overview of how British market research and market research works, arguing that "shall" should be understood as "must".

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.