| (Not a lawyer, so no idea if this is still controlling case law) The full reasoning chain seems to be that Hanover Shoe v United Shoe Machinery Corp (1968), in which the issue was USMC's leasing but refusal to sell machinery on which they had a monopoly, decided that being able to "pass along costs" was not a valid defense by a monopoly when sued by its direct customers. Consequently, in Illinois Brick v Illinois (1977) the court decided that if a monopoly cannot use "they can pass along costs" as a defense from damages, then it follows that indirect purchasers (ie customers of customers) cannot use same offensively to sue a monopoly. The intent is to prevent the complexity of calculating damages-once-removed, and putting the onus on the (simpler) damage calculation between direct monopoly and immediate customer. If the Court upholds the prior decision, the plaintiffs will be denied standing. In that case, the appropriate legal challenge would either be an app seller suing Apple, or a customer suing an app seller (who could likely sue Apple in response). If this is still case law, the only way I see this going another way is if the Court sees Apple's flat-30% as fundamentally different (and simpler) than the previously considered costs. [1] Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481 (1968) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/481/ [2] Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/720/ |
“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.”
if they decide that apple sells apps directly (after all, you go through apples distribution, payment, and “editorial” channels and have only a tenuous link to the developer i question) rather than the developers selling apps, then that could be an issue for them