Google, Apple Drive 'Black Box' IP Policing with App Store Rules (bloomberglaw.com) 15
App developers Musi and Sarafan Mobile have sued Apple and Google in California federal court over app removals they claim were unjustified, highlighting tensions over the tech giants' intellectual property enforcement policies. Musi's music-streaming app was removed after YouTube complained about interface infringement, while Sarafan's "Reely" app was taken down following Instagram's claims about logo similarity.
Both developers say the platforms breached their agreements by removing apps without sufficient evidence. The lawsuits underscore broader concerns about Apple and Google's dominance in app distribution. Their private IP dispute systems operate outside traditional legal frameworks, with platforms making unilateral decisions that can effectively shut down businesses, according to University of New Hampshire law professor Peter Karol. [...]
"In a court proceeding, you can see here's a complaint with the allegations, and then we have the defendant respond, and then we have a judge come out with an opinion saying, 'Is the mark valid? Is the mark infringed?'" said Lisa Ramsey, law professor at University of San Diego. Google and Apple's systems, meanwhile, are "a black box."
Both developers say the platforms breached their agreements by removing apps without sufficient evidence. The lawsuits underscore broader concerns about Apple and Google's dominance in app distribution. Their private IP dispute systems operate outside traditional legal frameworks, with platforms making unilateral decisions that can effectively shut down businesses, according to University of New Hampshire law professor Peter Karol. [...]
"In a court proceeding, you can see here's a complaint with the allegations, and then we have the defendant respond, and then we have a judge come out with an opinion saying, 'Is the mark valid? Is the mark infringed?'" said Lisa Ramsey, law professor at University of San Diego. Google and Apple's systems, meanwhile, are "a black box."
Unlike real law and the courts (Score:1)
Tech giants can do whatever they want, whenever they want and there is no effective way to fight them
take the case to the EU courts! (Score:2, Insightful)
take the case to the EU courts!
The paradigm of large corporation control sucks! (Score:2)
I don't understand why large corporations like this would play arbiter between parties. That's why we have courts and lawsuits. Why wouldn't Instagram send a cease and desist letter to Sarafan over the usage of the logo? This kind of control by large corporations over people's livelihood is uncalled for.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that as if you know the developers are fully guilty already. I hadn't seen the logo in question, so I looked it up. I think this is it. [linkedin.com] For reference, here are the logos for Instagram. [duckduckgo.com] Clearly Instagram's is a camera, while Sarafan's is something completely different. But the normal course of things would have been for Instagram to send a cease and desist letter to Sarafan, at which point Sarafan could have decided that "yeah, maybe our logo is too close to theirs" and agreed to change their lo
Not likely... (Score:2)
I can't see Apple or Google wanting to be arbitrators of this kind of nonsense. In light of allegations, it's easier for them to take down and just let the two companies fight it out in the courts.
These guys are complaining that they can't remain in the market while the disputes are raging, but hey, they could seek relief from the court even in that case.
Re: Not likely... (Score:3)
In that case both applications should be removed until the parties have an agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not. If it was, forgive me for this post and move on. If it wasn't, I propose to you that maybe, just maybe, the "arbitrators" who are acting as judge, jury, and executioner, as someone else pointed out, may actually be abusing their position (to their benefit, most likely - after all, who'd want to lose Instagram as opposed to Joe Schmo company?) to circumvent the long-established due-process routine we've all become accustomed to.
IP is ambiguous (Score:2)
Since it can mean IP protocol or Intellectual Property.
Re: (Score:2)
Wild West Takedowns Leave Small Devs Powerless (Score:3)
The article shines a light on a major problem with Google and Apple’s “black box” IP enforcement systems, which leave small app developers like Musi and Sarafan Mobile with few options when they face takedowns. The platforms’ opaque takedown processes allow them to act as judge, jury, and executioner without the due process or transparency found in traditional legal systems. For these developers, getting removed from the app stores can mean business death, with no real way to challenge the decisions. This looks like a classic David-vs-Goliath struggle, with the tech giants wielding immense power over small players.
University of New Hampshire law professor Peter Karol's characterization of these systems as a "Wild West" version of the DMCA architecture captures the problem well. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), there’s a legally mandated notice-and-takedown framework specifically for copyright disputes. This system, for all its flaws, offers some transparency and accountability, including penalties for false claims. Developers facing a copyright complaint can see the allegations, respond, and, in some cases, even seek damages if a takedown request is falsely made. But Google and Apple’s private takedown systems mimic only the outer shell of this framework without any of these protections, applying it to areas outside copyright like trademarks and patents.
The result is a “shadow IP enforcement regime” where decisions can feel arbitrary and often leave smaller developers with no clear recourse. For any developer who relies on app stores to reach customers, this lack of oversight means that a single complaint from a massive player can threaten their entire livelihood. Karol’s point underscores how easily the tech giants can act unilaterally, turning IP enforcement into a Wild West where only the powerful set the rules. Given how integral these platforms are, it feels critical to push for systems that bring a fairer balance, especially as the digital economy grows.
IP not what you think it means. (Score:2)
Intellectual Property is 'hard' because it's not real. There is no substance, just a name and an idea. Almost feels like someone wants to get paid for new words in the dictionary (on top of whatever situation they're actually useful in).
Oh, and it is confusing when you use an abbreviation that has a different typical meaning to your audience (Internet Protocol )