SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-apple-app-store-price-fixing-lawsuit/
The Supreme Court has ruled against Apple in a long-standing case over price fixing in the App Store, in a decision that allows iPhone owners to proceed with a lawsuit against the company. The court heard arguments in the case in November, and the decision was expected sometime this spring.
The plaintiffs claim Apple has a monopoly over iOS app distribution, which it uses unfairly to pass along its 30 percent cut of app sales to consumers. Apple claimed it was a middleman for app distribution, and that developers set the price. Since developers are the ones who pay Apple's commission, and not consumers, only they should be able to file a lawsuit on the issue, the company said.
The case hinged on the question of whether people who buy iOS apps do so directly from Apple. Following a 1977 decision on the case of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, only direct purchasers of products can file federal antitrust lawsuits.
Those behind the suit say that because payments go to Apple directly, and not the developers, consumers have a direct relationship with the company, and as such that makes this an antitrust case. They also claim that if consumers had other options for apps beyond the App Store, they'd pay less for them, while Apple would be under "considerable pressure" to lower its "pure profit" commission rate.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday May 14 2019, @03:08PM (1 child)
I would be highly surprised, if they didn't do some sort of price fixing.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday May 14 2019, @10:29PM
They don't actually have to. They built the wall, people paid them to get in the garden, and they take a 30% cut on anything you buy in the garden, regardless of who sells. Like a virtual government handling all transactions, and taxing you for the policing and the guaranteed audience.
No need to fix stuff, and they can argue you can move to another garden any time you want. That other garden is less shiny, might have more bad guys in it, but it has multiple doors through which you can buy untaxed goods.
SCOTUS ruled against Apple on a technicality, because Apple was trying to deflect to their vendors, despite being the one who takes the money and vets the vendors. That doesn't mean that they are indeed fixing pricing or doing anything shady. Anybody paying attention (and you should before paying that much of a garden entrance fee) knows beforehand how the garden works. I don't quite know how the plaintives can win that one.