Matrix Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Legal team's defense amounted to 'gerrymandering' the case says SCOTUS Bottom line: Apple has been denied its motion to dismiss price-fixing allegations. The US Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling that the defense's citing of a case from the 1970s does not apply in this instance and that customers may proceed with antitrust filings against the tech titan. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled 5-4 against the iPhone maker in a case involving antitrust practices with its App Store. Justices heard arguments last November and arrived at a decision on Monday. The ruling will allow customers to go forward with price-fixing lawsuits against the company. Plaintiffs in the case claim that Apple has monopolized iPhone app distribution and in doing so has gouged customers indirectly with its 30-percent commissions on app sales. The tech giant says that it acts as merely the storefront and that since developers name their own prices, it cannot be held responsible for price fixing. It further adds that since developers are the ones who pay the commission and not customers, developers should be the only ones that can have a claim citing a 1977 case between Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois. However, the SCOTUS disagreed saying that the Illinois Brick ruling found that direct purchasers of products are allowed to file anti-trust lawsuits. Since customers are paying Apple directly rather than the developers, they do have the right to sue. "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." Furthermore, justices feel that if customers had other options for purchasing apps, it would create competitive pressure on Apple to lower its commission. As it is now, customers and developers are locked into an ecosystem that is exclusively owned and operated by Apple so it can charge developers whatever it wants, and of course, those costs are passed on to the consumer. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in the Court’s opinion, “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. In particular, we fail to see why the form of the upstream arrangement between the manufacturer or supplier and the retailer should determine whether a monopolistic retailer can be sued by a downstream consumer who has purchased a good or service directly from the retailer and has paid a higher-than-competitive price because of the retailer’s unlawful monopolistic conduct.” The SCOTUS ruling does not consider the merit of the plaintiffs’ claims or any other defenses Apple may have. It only ruled that the company’s argument to dismiss under Illinois Brick was invalid. Apple’s stock tumbled almost six percent after the ruling, but it is hardly the end of its financial concerns in the matter. The company could be facing hundreds of millions in anti-trust claim settlements. It may also be looking at a forced reduction in the App Store’s 30-percent cut or removing restrictions against downloading from an alternative marketplace. This case is not the first price-fixing lawsuit Apple has faced. In 2014, the company settled an anti-trust lawsuit involving ebooks for $450 million. More recently in 2017, Russian regulators found Apple guilty of fixing prices for iPhones with several retailers in Russia. VIEW: Original Article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AchieVer Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Goodbye, walled garden: Apple gets bitten right in the app store If we are going to bust open the castle walls with the proverbial antitrust dragon, then we will need the right tools and services in order to reduce any possible end-user carnage. In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that a group of iPhone owners can proceed with a lawsuit against Apple on the grounds that the company is engaging in monopolistic practices in its use of a "walled garden." Applications for the iOS platform can only be bought from Apple's app store. Google's Android platform has historically differed from Apple's iOS in that it has always permitted end-users to "side-load" applications, which include alternative app stores, such as Amazon's. However, one of the biggest complaints about Android is how easy it is for a third-party, side-loaded application to cause problems on an end user's mobile device. This Android feature includes a risk of creating an overall app and OS instability -- and potentially allowing malware to install itself. Apple has allowed side-loading, but only for enterprises using the Developer Enterprise Program. This program enables companies to create and deploy custom applications on iOS, WatchOS, and TVOS devices, as well as code-sign Mac apps, plug-ins, and installers with a Developer ID certificate for distribution to employee Mac computers. As with iOS, Mac also has an app store, but Apple does not require that Mac systems exclusively install applications from it. While iOS does not currently have this feature, current versions of MacOS use a subsystem called "Gatekeeper," which is a security feature used to enforce code-signing using digital certificates. Gatekeeper verifies the signature of downloaded applications to ensure they are notarized before allowing them to execute, thus reducing the likelihood of inadvertently installing and running malware on the system. While the Developer Enterprise program has dramatically helped reduce the amount of malicious software installed on iOS systems, it is not infallible. The "Exodus" spyware, which managed to be installed directly from Google Play on Android devices, has been distributed using the Developer Enterprise toolsets on iOS devices. Although this ruling by the Supreme Court is not a judgment against Apple -- the Court did not classify the company as a monopoly, and it is not moving forward with any antitrust penalty -- the decision does does set a potentially damaging precedent for the company. By allowing this lawsuit to move forward, it opens up the possibility that there could be, at some point, antitrust proceedings against the company if it continues to maintain a status quo of only allowing Apple-trusted applications from its app store. EU LOOMS Additionally, in the past, EU has taken cues from the US whether to move with antitrust proceedings of its own and has also levied severe fines and penalties when it believes its own citizens and corporations are threatened by monopolistic practices of US technology companies. Case in point: In 2010, EU found that Microsoft had used its market dominance to pre-load its Internet Explorer browser on Windows. In addition to hefty fines, the EU required Microsoft to separate its Internet Explorer browser from the operating system and allowed the consumer to choose which web browser could be installed on the OS during the initial set-up process. Microsoft maintained a website called BrowserChoice.eu for this purpose, which was hosted until early 2015. Another example: In July 2018, the EU levied a $5 billion fine against Google for anti-competitive behavior on its Android OS. As part of the EU ruling, Google must stop forcing Chrome and Google search on Android OEMs, and prevent any efforts to block forked versions of Android. If you think $5 billion of fines against Google sounds bad for default search engine choices, wait until you see what it decides to do to Apple for alleged monopolistic practices with its app store. I believe that Apple's best strategy, going forward, is to port the Gatekeeper process/subsystem to iOS, WatchOS, and TVOS, and to create a digital signing infrastructure for third-party applications, which would include third-party app stores and installable application packages. I also think some cloud-based application package management system -- similar to what enterprises use for their developer accounts to install third-party apps -- should be made available to consumers that can be purchased as a value-added service. Additionally, Apple should not be obligated to provide cloud-sync or data backup infrastructure to side-loaded apps or app stores. Part of allowing side-loaded apps onto iOS is also going to be allowing these apps to have the same privileged status to access native APIs and other services on the OS. To me, that is troubling, because it opens up the potential for a lot of platform abuse. A lot of the value proposition of iOS is that it is a relatively safe platform, and that has been mostly resistant to malware attacks, although some malicious app store apps have been found, notably ones that communicate with Command and Control (C2) infrastructure of threat actors. Any allowing of side-loading on the iOS platform has to come with a big warning and waiver of responsibility to the end user, just as it is issued on Android. Maybe even two levels of "Are you sure?", with password/ID verification. While allowing side-loaded apps and app stores onto the iOS platform could be fraught with problems, and introduce many undesirable variables into the overall user experience, I do think it has some potential benefits. Third-party app stores have not been an enormous boon for Android, in terms of revenue generated in commercial software development, but it has allowed for increased choice for the end-user, particularly as it relates to adult content and other things that Google itself deems inappropriate or goes against its self-interests. There are many kinds of applications that could benefit from side-loading on iOS. One such example could be payment systems that might compete with Apple Pay, such as Google Pay, which exists on the iOS platform but doesn't currently have NFC capabilities, likely due to concerns of being delisted in the app store, if that functionality was enabled. Samsung chose not to launch its Samsung Pay app and service on iOS, likely due to the difficulty of being listed on the app store. If side-loading were permitted, not only could Samsung launch its payment service on iOS, but potentially its app store, as well. Another third-party app store that may be of interest to broader use is Cydia, which is currently used by users of "jailbroken" iOS systems. But these are more along the lines of tweaks and hacks to extend iOS, for those who want to customize their user experience. Third-party side-loading would not be akin to jailbreaking (sometimes referred to as "rooting"), in which low-level OS services and settings could be changed that are generally not accessible to an end-user. I believe it is inevitable that iOS' walled garden will be demolished. But if we are going to bust open the castle walls with the proverbial antitrust dragon, then Apple should provide the needed tools and services in order to reduce any possible carnage -- as well as issue appropriate advisories to its end-user population (that perhaps opening those application gates for most people might not be such a great idea). Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that a group of iPhone owners can proceed with a lawsuit against Apple on the grounds that the company is engaging in monopolistic practices in its use of a "walled garden." Applications for the iOS platform can only be bought from Apple's app store. Google's Android platform has historically differed from Apple's iOS in that it has always permitted end-users to "side-load" applications, which include alternative app stores, such as Amazon's. However, one of the biggest complaints about Android is how easy it is for a third-party, side-loaded application to cause problems on an end user's mobile device. This Android feature includes a risk of creating an overall app and OS instability -- and potentially allowing malware to install itself. Apple has allowed side-loading, but only for enterprises using the Developer Enterprise Program. This program enables companies to create and deploy custom applications on iOS, WatchOS, and TVOS devices, as well as code-sign Mac apps, plug-ins, and installers with a Developer ID certificate for distribution to employee Mac computers. As with iOS, Mac also has an app store, but Apple does not require that Mac systems exclusively install applications from it. While iOS does not currently have this feature, current versions of MacOS use a subsystem called "Gatekeeper," which is a security feature used to enforce code-signing using digital certificates. Gatekeeper verifies the signature of downloaded applications to ensure they are notarized before allowing them to execute, thus reducing the likelihood of inadvertently installing and running malware on the system. While the Developer Enterprise program has dramatically helped reduce the amount of malicious software installed on iOS systems, it is not infallible. The "Exodus" spyware, which managed to be installed directly from Google Play on Android devices, has been distributed using the Developer Enterprise toolsets on iOS devices. Although this ruling by the Supreme Court is not a judgment against Apple -- the Court did not classify the company as a monopoly, and it is not moving forward with any antitrust penalty -- the decision does does set a potentially damaging precedent for the company. By allowing this lawsuit to move forward, it opens up the possibility that there could be, at some point, antitrust proceedings against the company if it continues to maintain a status quo of only allowing Apple-trusted applications from its app store. EU LOOMS Additionally, in the past, EU has taken cues from the US whether to move with antitrust proceedings of its own and has also levied severe fines and penalties when it believes its own citizens and corporations are threatened by monopolistic practices of US technology companies. Case in point: In 2010, EU found that Microsoft had used its market dominance to pre-load its Internet Explorer browser on Windows. In addition to hefty fines, the EU required Microsoft to separate its Internet Explorer browser from the operating system and allowed the consumer to choose which web browser could be installed on the OS during the initial set-up process. Microsoft maintained a website called BrowserChoice.eu for this purpose, which was hosted until early 2015. Another example: In July 2018, the EU levied a $5 billion fine against Google for anti-competitive behavior on its Android OS. As part of the EU ruling, Google must stop forcing Chrome and Google search on Android OEMs, and prevent any efforts to block forked versions of Android. If you think $5 billion of fines against Google sounds bad for default search engine choices, wait until you see what it decides to do to Apple for alleged monopolistic practices with its app store. I believe that Apple's best strategy, going forward, is to port the Gatekeeper process/subsystem to iOS, WatchOS, and TVOS, and to create a digital signing infrastructure for third-party applications, which would include third-party app stores and installable application packages. I also think some cloud-based application package management system -- similar to what enterprises use for their developer accounts to install third-party apps -- should be made available to consumers that can be purchased as a value-added service. Additionally, Apple should not be obligated to provide cloud-sync or data backup infrastructure to side-loaded apps or app stores. Part of allowing side-loaded apps onto iOS is also going to be allowing these apps to have the same privileged status to access native APIs and other services on the OS. To me, that is troubling, because it opens up the potential for a lot of platform abuse. A lot of the value proposition of iOS is that it is a relatively safe platform, and that has been mostly resistant to malware attacks, although some malicious app store apps have been found, notably ones that communicate with Command and Control (C2) infrastructure of threat actors. Any allowing of side-loading on the iOS platform has to come with a big warning and waiver of responsibility to the end user, just as it is issued on Android. Maybe even two levels of "Are you sure?", with password/ID verification. While allowing side-loaded apps and app stores onto the iOS platform could be fraught with problems, and introduce many undesirable variables into the overall user experience, I do think it has some potential benefits. Third-party app stores have not been an enormous boon for Android, in terms of revenue generated in commercial software development, but it has allowed for increased choice for the end-user, particularly as it relates to adult content and other things that Google itself deems inappropriate or goes against its self-interests. There are many kinds of applications that could benefit from side-loading on iOS. One such example could be payment systems that might compete with Apple Pay, such as Google Pay, which exists on the iOS platform but doesn't currently have NFC capabilities, likely due to concerns of being delisted in the app store, if that functionality was enabled. Samsung chose not to launch its Samsung Pay app and service on iOS, likely due to the difficulty of being listed on the app store. If side-loading were permitted, not only could Samsung launch its payment service on iOS, but potentially its app store, as well. Another third-party app store that may be of interest to broader use is Cydia, which is currently used by users of "jailbroken" iOS systems. But these are more along the lines of tweaks and hacks to extend iOS, for those who want to customize their user experience. Third-party side-loading would not be akin to jailbreaking (sometimes referred to as "rooting"), in which low-level OS services and settings could be changed that are generally not accessible to an end-user. I believe it is inevitable that iOS' walled garden will be demolished. But if we are going to bust open the castle walls with the proverbial antitrust dragon, then Apple should provide the needed tools and services in order to reduce any possible carnage -- as well as issue appropriate advisories to its end-user population (that perhaps opening those application gates for most people might not be such a great idea). Source
Karlston Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Similar topics merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AchieVer Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Antitrust Lawsuit Could Drastically Change the Apple App Store The United States Supreme Court has decided to allow an antitrust case against Apple to move forward after the company previously appealed a lower court ruling against it. As explained in the official Supreme Court’s decision here, Apple is being accused of forcing the App Store on its customers, eventually using its monopolistic power to charge both developers and consumers. Technically, Apple only allows iPhone apps to be distributed through the App Store. Developers can create apps and publish them in the App Store with a $99 account. If these apps are being sold through the App Store (hence they aren’t offered free of charge), Apple gets a 30% percent of the revenue. Apple’s approach could pave the way for an antitrust lawsuit, as forcing the App Store on customers and developers and then taking a cut of all sales could mean the company’s business model is based on a monopolistic system.Consumers could sue Apple over antitrust violationThe Supreme Court explains in the Opinion of the Court (linked above) that it’s looking into the rights of consumers to sue Apple for this approach. “A claim that a monopolistic retailer (here, Apple) has used its monopoly to overcharge consumers is a classic antitrust claim. But Apple asserts that the consumer plaintiffs in this case may not sue Apple because they supposedly were not “direct purchasers” from Apple under our decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720, 745–746 (1977),” the court says. “We disagree. The plaintiffs purchased apps directly from Apple and therefore are direct purchasers under Illinois Brick. At this early pleadings stage of the litigation, we do not assess the merits of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims against Apple, nor do we consider any other defenses Apple might have. We merely hold that the Illinois Brick direct-purchaser rule does not bar these plaintiffs from suing Apple under the antitrust laws.” Needless to say, this isn’t a ruling against Apple, but while we’re probably several years away from a decision in this case, it could eventually be the first step towards bigger changes in the App Store, including lower cuts on the App Store dev revenue. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The AchieVer Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 Apple Slams Monopoly Claims, Praises App Store Security Apple plays down the recent antitrust lawsuit that received the go-ahead from the Supreme Court, with the company explaining that the App Store isn’t a monopoly “by any metric.” According to the legal action, which can now move forward as per the Supreme Court’s decision, Apple might be violating antitrust regulations by forcing the App Store on iPhones and then charging developers for selling their apps here. In its statement, Apple denies the monopoly claims, explaining instead that the App Store is the most secure platform for its customers. “Today’s decision means plaintiffs can proceed with their case in District court. We’re confident we will prevail when the facts are presented and that the App Store is not a monopoly by any metric. We’re proud to have created the safest, most secure and trusted platform for customers and a great business opportunity for all developers around the world. Developers set the price they want to charge for their app and Apple has no role in that,” the company told CNBC in a statement.Free appsAt the same time, Apple emphasizes that some of the apps published in the App Store are actually offered with a free license, which means the company doesn’t receive a single cent when they are downloaded. Apple doesn’t say how many apps are offered for free, but it refers to this category as “the vast majority of apps.” The company “gets nothing from them,” it explains. “The only instance where Apple shares in revenue is if the developer chooses to sell digital services through the App Store. Developers have a number of platforms to choose from to deliver their software – from other apps stores, to Smart TVs to gaming consoles – and we work hard every day to make sure our store is the best, safest, and most competitive in the world,” the firm continues. Despite the lawsuit allowed to go through, it could take years until a final court decision is being made, so it remains to be seen what impact this legal action could have on the App Store. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlston Posted May 14, 2019 Share Posted May 14, 2019 More similar topics merged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.