Supreme Court Rules Against Apple in App Store Antitrust Case
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
"The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchas- ers under Illinois Brick. At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws."
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf
They do get a shot at the merits. Their hope of winning on the merits is incredibly low.
The reason they fought so hard (and others do) is because almost all antitrust cases are decided by what the court defines the market as. If you go look through appeals of antitrust cases, you'll see most focus on the definition of the market and only secondarily on whether they caused harm in that market.
It's only when they lose (or it's a foregone conclusion) on the market side that they argue heavily on the harm side.
In this case, the market is defined in such a way that apple is almost certain to lose. Apple is really not going to have a good time saying their 30% cut helps consumers. This is why they argued the standing issue all the way to scotus.
For example, it is highly unlikely they will be able to show that the markup is to do things like "police the app store", because the markup is way too high for that purpose.
Court will almost certainly find it a harmful tax that is not beneficial to consumers.
Speaking as a lawyer, the merits of this one are an almost foregone conclusion.
(It's possible apple wins - that possibility is very small)
As a non-lawyer, it's a suprisingly easy read in what seems like plain English.
> KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINS-BURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.
The 5-4 split is also interesting with Kavanaugh siding with the liberal justices.
Gorsuch seems more interested in just the letter of the law, regardless if that results in absurdities.
I'm also skeptical about those complaints as they typically just are translated "this should be read strictly because the outcome is what I want".
There is no authority by which judges can promote executive orders to the status of law, and then proceed order that the government spend money on the program. This was precisely a situation where the judges were uncomfortable with the outcome so they legislated from the bench.
DACA was differed action, it was not amnesty.
>creating non-individualized discretion decisions
Prioritizing deportations and prosecution based on criminal history has been done for ages, that doesn't seem much different and isn't questioned much at all...
When was action going to be taken? Under DACA participants can renew every two years with no limit on how many renewals they can do. That's amnesty.
Regardless, there is nothing in the constitution that says an executive order cannot be reversed by a later president. The courts acted as if there is and ordered the continued implementation of DACA.
Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can.
The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the program.
I clearly stated "effective amnesty" in my original post. If the day of action can be indefinitely put off, then it's effective amnesty.
>Just because a president can reverse a decision doesn't mean they always can.
What is the constitutional basis for a prior president's executive orders being irreversible by a later president?
>The case that kept DACA going was on behalf of those participating right? So it would seem something related to that was the reason for continuing the program.
What's the constitutional, or statutory, basis for non-citizens who have no lawful status in the country, to have a right to remain in the country?
You're understanding or at least shifting statements that revolve around this being purely a case where a president has the right to change course is simply not the only factor at play.
You seem more concerned about the question of immigration rather than the actual law / decisions in play.
Not the first time he's done it either. I think he did something similar about half a year ago.
I've found almost every SCOTUS and appellate court opinion highly readable. Not only that, often quite fun. (Skip the syllabus, though.)
The real prize is forcing Apple to allow users to install software from any source:
> Apple Inc. v. Robert Pepper is the latest salvo in a legal fight over Apple’s iOS App Store. A group of iPhone buyers are claiming that Apple’s locked-down ecosystem artificially inflates the prices of apps because all developers must go through a single store that takes a cut of their revenue. The buyers argue that Apple has established an unlawful monopoly over iOS apps, and they’re asking the courts to make Apple allow third-party iOS apps, in addition to repaying every iOS user it’s overcharged in the past.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-ap...
By extension, any company maintaining a walled garden could be sued for anti-trust violations by end users. That hasn't been possible until now due to a previous Supreme Court ruling called "Illinois Brick":
> Arguing for Apple, lawyer Daniel Wall told the justices that the iPhone users’ claim is exactly the kind of claim that is prohibited under the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which held that only consumers who are direct purchasers of a product can bring a lawsuit seeking the triple damages available for violations of federal antitrust laws: Here, Wall said, the only theory of damages in the case is that Apple charges app developers a 30-percent commission, which in turn causes the developers to increase the prices that consumers pay for apps. Therefore, Wall argued, it is the app developers, not the iPhone users, who are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/argument-analysis-justice...
The Illinois Brick ruling prevents "pass-through" claims of damagers. So if I buy something from Company A, and they bought something from Company B required to make my item, and Company B is a monopoly, I cannot claim damages as a "pass-through." Company A has to claim damages. The majority's point is clear:
"In this case, unlike in Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are not consumers at the bottom of a vertical distribution chain who are attempting to sue manufacturers at the top of the chain. There is no intermediary in the distribution chain between Apple and the consumer. The iPhone owners purchase apps directly from the retailer Apple, who is the alleged antitrust violator. The iPhone owners pay the alleged overcharge directly to Apple. The absence of an intermediary is dispositive. Under Illinois Brick, the iPhone owners are direct purchasers from Apple and are proper plaintiffs to maintain this antitrust suit."
Not sure the best way to weigh the benefits/risks.
Could this open the floodgates for finally getting rid of ridiculous commissions for digital works of these digital stores? I don't think Amazon/Google/Apple will really hurt that much if this becomes the case, and creators could early quite a bit more for their works.
Or is this case very limited to Apple and their monopoly based on their control of Apple devices?
Apple forces all developers to only use their app store, and then makes them pay 30%.
I don't know much about Amazon's Android fork, but I assume it's possible to sideload an appstore there too (though I could be wrong).