<story><title>US appeals court revives antitrust lawsuit against Apple</title><url>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-court-idUSKBN14W2VH</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>btown</author><text>Here&amp;#x27;s the actual decision: &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;law.justia.com&amp;#x2F;cases&amp;#x2F;federal&amp;#x2F;appellate-courts&amp;#x2F;ca9&amp;#x2F;14-15000&amp;#x2F;14-15000-2017-01-12.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;law.justia.com&amp;#x2F;cases&amp;#x2F;federal&amp;#x2F;appellate-courts&amp;#x2F;ca9&amp;#x2F;14-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most of the document is about the complex procedural history of the case. The meat of the new decision is on page 20 onwards:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Apple argues that it does not sell apps but rather sells
“software distribution services to developers.” In Apple’s
view, because it sells distribution services to app developers,
it cannot simultaneously be a distributor of apps to app
purchasers. Apple analogizes its role to the role of an owner
of a shopping mall that “leases physical space to various
stores.” Apple’s analogy is unconvincing. In the case before
us, third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their
own “stores.” Indeed, part of the anti-competitive behavior
alleged by Plaintiffs is that, far from allowing iPhone app
developers to sell through their own “stores,” Apple
specifically forbids them to do so, instead requiring them to
sell iPhone apps only through Apple’s App Store.&lt;p&gt;...&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; [W]e rest our analysis, as compelled by Hanover
Shoe, Illinois Brick, UtiliCorp, and Delaware Valley, on the
fundamental distinction between a manufacturer or producer,
on the one hand, and a distributor, on the other. Apple is a
distributor of the iPhone apps, selling them directly to
purchasers through its App Store. Because Apple is a
distributor, Plaintiffs have standing under Illinois Brick to sue
Apple for allegedly monopolizing and attempting to
monopolize the sale of iPhone apps.&lt;p&gt;(IANAL)</text></comment>
<story><title>US appeals court revives antitrust lawsuit against Apple</title><url>http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-court-idUSKBN14W2VH</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>mbenjaminsmith</author><text>&amp;quot;[T]he obvious solution is to compel Apple to let people shop for applications wherever they want, which would open the market and help lower prices&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Is that a joke?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d love to be able to sell iOS software directly to users. Even if there were no viable channels outside of the App Store having the choice would make me rest a lot easier.&lt;p&gt;But to state that &amp;quot;Apple&amp;#x27;s monopoly&amp;quot; has driven the price of software up is to be laughably out of touch with reality. Maybe this has to be argued from the point of view of the consumer and they thought &amp;quot;monopoly driving prices down&amp;quot; wouldn&amp;#x27;t be a very good case?</text></comment>