[ad_1]
The Supreme Court seemed ready Monday to authorize an antitrust lawsuit that said that Apple unfairly monopolized the iPhone app sales market.
Apple faced skeptical questions from judges who seemed preoccupied with the California Cupertino company's control over iPhone users having to buy software for their smartphones exclusively through its App Store.
The arguments were about the benefits of technology. In the last 10 years, more than 2 million applications have been made available to iPhone users, but in the audience room, there has also been reference to d & # 39; old antitrust cases involving concrete, aluminum, natural gas and shoes.
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 the amount of compensation granted to consumers under antitrust law if Apple were ultimately to lose the complaint. 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. If anyone should be able to sue Apple, it's a developer, said Daniel Wall. "There has been a lot of conflict, but no one has ever been sued," 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 get my iPhone back in. I go to the Apple App Store, I pay Apple credit card information directly to Apple from my point of view. just made a one-step deal with Apple, "said Kagan.
Judge Brett Kavanaugh said that if consumers pay more than they should, they should perhaps be able to sue. The relevant federal antitrust law states that "any aggrieved person" can sue, said Kavanaugh.
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.
The brand claims that the popularity of software for iPhone and its App Store should not make us 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 backs Apple before the high court
The lawyer David Frederick, who represents consumers, said that Apple's monopoly on iPhone applications was unique to the company. digital age. "Apple can not designate another e-commerce distributor that does what it does," Frederick said. 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. judgment c. Pepper, 17-204, is expected here late spring.
Explore Further:
Judges will hear antitrust cases regarding the sale of iPhone apps
Source link
