Posted on 05/13/2019 7:28:45 AM PDT by Red Badger
Key Points
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 against Apple in a case involving its signature electronic marketplace, the App Store, allowing iPhone users to move forward with their suit against the company.
The iPhone users argued that Apple’s 30% commission on sales through the App Store was passed along to consumers, an unfair use of monopoly power. Apple argued that only app developers, and not users, should be able to bring such a lawsuit.
“Apple’s line-drawing does not make a lot of sense, other than as a way to gerrymander Apple out of this and similar lawsuits,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
I see that reasonable feature as what may have opened apple up to a lawsuit.
Why was that?
Because the records were not part of one’s personal effects, perhaps?
I need to understand more in this latest one, as it seems both consumers and competitors are damaged with antitrust violations.
But so far, it appears to me as if he’s right in this case. Which matters.
Kavanaugh was educated his entire life by leftist Jesuits. Kavanaugh will be a reliable liberal vote on the court.
hence the level of virus infection...
PS - sorry I forgot to include a link:
I use anti malware software. Have never had an issue. I like iPhones, just don’t want to spend the money on one.
I actually agree with the decision. I’m not saying the plaintiffs should win with their lawsuit but it’s dumb to say they can’t sue one of the suppliers in the supply chain.
“To evade the court’s test, all Apple must do is amend its contracts,” Gorsuch wrote. “Instead of collecting payments for apps sold in the App Store and remitting the balance (less its commission) to developers, Apple can simply specify that consumers’ payments will flow the other way: directly to the developers, who will then remit commissions to Apple.”
and...
Apple argued that the lawsuit’s focus was the 30% commission, something the company said is paid by the developers, not the app purchasers. Although the consumers said they pay for the commissions through higher app prices, Apple said those are the type of “pass-through” damages barred under the Supreme Court’s 1977 Illinois Brick v. Illinois ruling.
Apparently, Roberts & Co agreed with Apple??
The basis of Thomas' dissent was that the Fourth Amendment only protected a person's own life and property ... and the cell phone data in question could not possibly be covered by the Fourth Amendment when the cell phone contract explicitly stated that the location data belongs to the phone carrier.
That makes sense.
Doesn’t address the issue of privacy in the modern world of voracious tech service contracts, but that’s not really the USSC’s job.
And this one is the one where I don’t understand the logic of the conservative dissent yet.
This is why anti-trust and monopoly laws were written. To protect consumers.
This suit is narrow but it’s part of the larger anti-trust issues of Big Leftist Tech using their platforms to smother freedom and liberty. They started by stifling their competition. They have progressed to stifling their consumers.
The bigger questions about apple have to do with anti-trust:
1) how can they possibly REQUIRE developers to own a Mac?
2) Apps cannot be sideloaded from 3rd parties. Combine that with the fact that they use editorial discretion on app store submissions.
3) Any app purchases or subscription purchases via an app MUST bill through the app store where you have to pay 30% commissions.
From a cursory reading I think I’m with Kavanaugh on this one.
The point is that Apple has a closed system on its iOS devices and you can only install things when purchased from its store.
Apple takes a 30% cut of whatever developers get and the consumers here say that they have to pay that fee because there’s no alternative.
Apple says no because the customers don’t have standing to sue and aren’t the ones being charged the 30% - which doesn’t matter because the costs get borne by the consumer anyway so I think they have standing to sue.
Now do they have a chance at actually winning (that the percentage is unfair) dunno - I don’t think so.
Letter of the law - I think - which says that the “customer” has standing.
Apple doesn’t charge the consumers 30% - it charges the developers and they’re the “customers” in this case. Apple’s argument is that the developers set their own price and don’t have to pass on the cost. (Eg if they charge less, Apple gets less) so the law says the actual consumers don’t have standing to sue.
Kavanaugh interpreted the law... liberally...
What’s scratching my head is why Roberts sided with the conservative viewpoint - especially after saying Obamacare was “fine” coz he don’t make decisions politically...
Tough crap.
They can develop android apps.
That’s exactly what Thomas said in his opinion: If Congress determines that there is a need to protect consumer privacy regarding phone records, then it should be done through a new statute rather than through the misguided application of Fourth Amendment protection.
Seems like simple price-fixing isn’t the question when Apple enforces monopoly status. Apple gets to charge an exorbitant percentage, which 30% is in this case, because of that status.
I think consumer tech companies have been forced to not, for example, cancel warranties if consumers go elsewhere for service on their products, and the likes of Microsoft have been slapped back from using tech to force the vertical integration of their additional services and products on top of their underlying technology.
I appreciate your description, but don’t know that I’ve seen enough yet to know that the left is over-interpreting. I hope to have the time to take a peek myself this week.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.