[ad_1]
Apple is before the Supreme Court to defend its way of selling iPhone apps against consumer claims that the company would have unfairly monopolized the market.
Judges listen to Monday's arguments in order to end Apple's antitrust lawsuit that could force the iPhone maker to reduce the 30% commission it charges developers to software whose apps are sold exclusively through the Apple App Store. A judge could triple consumer awards under antitrust law if Apple ends up losing the lawsuit.
Apple claims to not own the apps or sell them. It's the responsibility of software developers.
But the complaint indicates that the Cupertino, California-based company is exercising a lot of control over the process, including the requirement to close prices. And iPhone apps are only available on the App Store.
The problem for the Supreme Court is whether Apple can be sued for applications, given past rulings of superior courts in antitrust cases. . In other cases, judges said that there should be a direct relationship between the seller and a party complaining of unfair and anti-competitive prices.
Consumers can choose from over 2 million applications out of the 500 available when Apple created the App Store in 2008. "Expression" there is an app for this purpose "made now part of the popular lexicon, "said the President of the Court, John Roberts, in a ruling in 2014 that limited the search of mobile phones without a court order. of the police. Apple recorded the sentence.
But the company says that the popularity of the software for iPhone and its App Store should not hide that consumers buy apps from developers, not Apple.
"Apple is a commercial and distribution agent for developers," said Apple's attorneys in a presentation to the Supreme Court. "Apple's central argument has always been that any harm caused to consumers necessarily depends on the developer's decision because Apple does not fix the prices of applications."
ALSO READ: Google and two NGOs launch a virtual education platform for Spanish-speakers
Apple receives a 30% commission on the sale of applications, but says any complaint about its price structure should come from developers, not consumers, since they are the ones who pay the commission. The Trump administration supports Apple in the superior court.
A lower court dismissed the appeal, but the US Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit. UU
Consumer lawyers urged the superior court to allow the trial to continue. Consumers "pay monopoly prices for applications directly to Apple via its App Store," lawyers wrote in their brief to the Supreme Court. This direct relationship makes Apple the appropriate goal of an antitrust lawsuit, they said.
A win for Apple could seriously curtail consumers' ability to sue for violating antitrust law, though Congress has anticipated the risk of such lawsuits "forming" a central element of enforcement antitrust laws, "18 academics warned about the antitrust law in a case before the Supreme Court.
A decision is expected in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 17-204 by the end of spring
.
[ad_2]
Source link
