[mitchty]

I think this is their argument ultimately:

Apple has seized upon a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that limited damages for anti-competitive conduct to those directly overcharged instead of indirect victims who paid an overcharge passed on by others. Part of the concern, the court said in that case, was to free judges from having to make complex calculations of damages.

I'm no lawyer either but that seems to generally be true of this case in that users shouldn't be the ones bringing cases but developers could by my read. But whatever we'll see what the court decides.

[rickycook]

mentioned and expanded on in a parent comment, but the important part of the article related to that is right at the bottom:

“The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year revived the lawsuit, deciding that Apple was a distributor that sold iPhone apps directly to consumers.”

the question is whether apple sells the apps, or the developer sells the apps.

[mitchty]

Right but that seems to be the ultimate thing at question here not? Whether the ninth circuit's decision is correct.

I'll have to wait for this week in law to cover the case from a legal perspective, they're lawyers so they tend to have a more lawyery view of things and bring on experts in the field. There tends to be more nuance than most engineers tend to bring in "apple charging 30% is immoral" arguments.