[ad_1]
Judges heard arguments Monday as part of Apple's efforts to end an antitrust lawsuit that could force the iPhone maker to reduce the commission by 30%. it charges software developers whose apps are sold exclusively through the Apple App Store. A judge could triple consumer compensation under antitrust law if Apple ultimately loses legal action
WASHINGTON (AP) – Supreme Court appeared ready Monday to authorize launch of an action antitrust arguing that Apple had unfairly monopolized the sales market
Apple was faced with skeptical questions from judges who seemed preoccupied with the control exercised by the Californian company Cupertino over iPhone users who have to buy the software from their smartphones exclusively via their App Store.
The fruits of technology that, in the last 10 years, have put more than 2 million applications available to iPhone users, but in the audience room, we also referred to old antitrust cases involving concrete, aluminum, natural gas and shoes.
by iPhone users could force Apple to reduce the 30% commission it charges to software developers whose apps are sold through the App Store. A judge could triple consumer awards under antitrust law if Apple eventually loses the lawsuit.
But the question before the High Court of Justice at this early stage of the proceedings is whether the case can go forward. Judge Stephen Breyer, who taught antitrust law at Harvard Law School, said that the consumer case seemed simple and consistent with a century of antitrust law.
Apple claims that it is only a pipeline between the application developers and consumers, and that the iPhone Under federal laws prohibiting the control Unfair of a market, users do not have to badert their rights.
Tens of thousands of software developers set prices and agree to pay Apple a 30% commission on everything they sell, said Apple's attorney representative to the media. audience room. According to Daniel Wall, if anyone should be able to sue Apple, he's a developer. "There has been a lot of conflict, but none has ever been brought to justice," he said.
Chief Justice John Roberts was alone among the nine judges who seemed willing to subscribe to Apple.
Among the judges who seemed to have For Judge Elena Kagan, consumers seem to have a direct relationship with Apple. "I pick up my iPhone. I go to the Apple App Store. I pay directly to Apple the credit card information I have provided to Apple. From my point of view, I just signed a one-step deal with Apple, "said Kagan.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated that if consumers paid more than they should, they should perhaps be able to sue. The relevant federal antitrust law states that "anyone injured" can sue, Kavanaugh said.
His remarks could allow him to badociate with the judges who would allow the prosecution to continue. In other cases, the court ruled that there must be a direct relationship between the seller and a party complaining of unjustified and anti-competitive prices.
Consumers can choose from over 2 million applications, compared to the 500 applications previously proposed. available when Apple created the App Store in 2008. "The phrase" there is an app for this "is now part of the popular lexicon," Roberts said in a 2014 decision limiting research without a warrant from cell phones by the police.
But the company says that the popularity of software for iPhone and its App Store should not forget that consumers buy applications from developers, not Apple. Developers have set prices, although Apple is asking for prices to end in 0.99, Wall said. The Trump administration supports Apple in front of the high court.
Lawyer David Frederick, who represents consumers, said that Apple's monopoly on iPhone apps was unique in the digital age. "Apple can not point to another e-commerce distributor that does what it does," said Frederick. Even Apple allows third parties to sell software directly to buyers of its desktops and laptops, he said.
A court of first instance initially dismissed the complaint. The court of appeal of the 9th American circuit has restored it.
An Apple Victory Could Seriously Restrict Consumer's Ability to Prosecute Antitrust Violations, Though Congress Contemplates Such Prosecutions "Would Be a Central Element of Antitrust Enforcement" , warned 18 competition law specialists in a case submitted to the Supreme Court.
An Apple Inc. case c. Pepper, 17-204, is expected here late spring.
Copyright © 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, disseminated, written or redistributed.
Source link
