The four dollars is for providing the platform that the user used to navigate to the link and download the zip file.
That's a fun bit of argument from the owners of Chrome.
These rules aren’t for linking out from the store to a third party site, but rather for installing an app from the store and then linking out to a third party payment.
And does not include showing up first in search results for your app's name. That's a separate fee you'll need to pay.
But it seems to me that the court is trying to enforce some kind of middle ground, which doesn't make sense. There's no legal principle one can use to curtail the power of an IP holder aside from mandating it be given away for free. Indeed, the whole idea of IP law is that the true value of the underlying property can only be realized if the property owner has the power of the state to force others to negotiate for it. Apple was told "you can charge for your IP" and said "well all our fee is actually licensing, except for the 3% we pay per transaction". The courts rejected this, so... I mean, what does Apple do now? Keep whittling down the fee until the court finds it reasonable? That can't possibly be good faith compliance (as if Apple has ever complied in good faith lol).
You're describing property in general. Not just IP.
> Apple was told "you can charge for your IP"
It's a bit misleading to use quotes in this case, given you aren't quoting the court.
The costs provided here may very well fall into the acceptable boundaries for the courts.