I think Apple tries to avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP. It can be a very messy situation with licensing and such. They tend to approve it then take it down if they get complaints.
> I think Apple tries to avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP.
Given that they provide the sole means of performing this infringement (given that there are no other means to make money off iOS applications), this argument is a bit too generous towards what is basically Apple not giving a shit about developer's rights.
They do not "avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP"; they are providing the only infrastructure and act as payment processor (even taking their share!) of the infringements taking part. This is morally significantly worse than Pirate Bay and the like (who provide a service to the public), but unfortunately[1], there's no RIAA/MPAA equivalent for software developers.
[1] It's debatable whether this is actually unfortunate for the general public
To clarify, I mean that Apple does not consider it their job to require proof that a given developer owns the IP during the initial review process. They don't want to be policing contracts and stuff that they aren't a party to.
Given that they provide the sole means of performing this infringement (given that there are no other means to make money off iOS applications), this argument is a bit too generous towards what is basically Apple not giving a shit about developer's rights.
They do not "avoid being involved too much in policing other people's IP"; they are providing the only infrastructure and act as payment processor (even taking their share!) of the infringements taking part. This is morally significantly worse than Pirate Bay and the like (who provide a service to the public), but unfortunately[1], there's no RIAA/MPAA equivalent for software developers.
[1] It's debatable whether this is actually unfortunate for the general public