Mark Sherman, Associated Press Updated11:48 PM PST, Sunday, November 25, 2018 FILE – March 19, 2018 shows file photo Apple's…
Photo: Patrick Semansky, AP
WASHINGTON (AP) – Apple is in the supreme court to defend how it sells apps to iPhone against consumers demand that the company improperly monopolized the market. 19659014] The fairy tales are heard on Monday in Apple’s endeavor to end an antitrust process that could force the iPhone manufacturer to cut 30 percent of the commission that extracts software developers whose apps are sold exclusively through Apple’s App Store. A judge can triple compensation to consumers under anti-trust laws if Apple eventually loses the trial.
Apple says it does not own or sell apps. It is the responsibility of software developers.
But the mood says Cupertino, California’s based companies have a lot of control over the process, including a demand for prices to end in99. And iPhone apps are only available through the App Store.
The issue for the supreme court is whether Apple can even sue over apps given earlier court rulings in antitrust cases. In other cases, the fair have said that there must be a direct relationship between the seller and a party complaining of unfair anti-competitive prices.
Consumers can choose from more than 2 million apps, from the 500 apps that were available when Apple created the App Store 2008. “The phrase” there’s an app for it “is now part of the popular dictionary,” says Judge John. Roberts in a 2014 decision limiting independent searches of mobile phones by the police. Apple has trademarked phrase.
But the company says that the popularity of the software for iPhones and App Store should not hide consumers buying apps from developers, not Apple.
“Apple is a sales and distribution agent for developers,” Apple’s lawyers said in a Supreme Court filing. “Apple’s core argument has always been that any harm to consumers necessarily depends on decision making decisions because Apple does not set up program prices.”
Apple takes 30 percent commission on the sale of apps, but there are some complaints about its pricing structure should come f robbery developers, not consumers, because they are the developers who pay the commission. The Trump Administration supports Apple at the Supreme Court.
A court of law initially dismissed the trial, but the 9th US Circuit Court revived it.
Lawyers for consumers urged the Supreme Court to allow the trial to continue. Consumers “pay monopoly prices for apps directly to Apple via the App Store,” the lawyers wrote in their Supreme Court letter. The direct relationship makes Apple a real target for an anti-competitive trial.
A victory for Apple can seriously restrict consumers’ ability to sue anti-trust violations despite the Congress proposing such lawsuit “would be a central part of the enforcement of antitrust laws”, 18 antitrust warders warned in a Supreme Court application.
A decision by Apple Inc. against Pepper, 17-204, is expected in the spring.