Apple is in the Supreme Court, which sells iPhones applications, which defend consumers against claims, has monopolized the company's market.
Justice is hearing Monday in Apple's effort to cut 30 percent commissions that develop software that develop software that exclusively software developed through the Apple App Store. A judge has tripled consumer compensation according to anti-competitive laws when Apple loses the law after all.
Apple does not own or sell applications. This is the responsibility of software developers.
But the lawsuit in the Cupertino, California-based firm says that it has a great deal of control over the process, prices are 99. And the iPhone apps are only available through the App Store.
The Supreme Court is committed to whether Apple may sue the app or not. In other cases, the judges have said that the relationship between the seller and the complainant about unfair and contradictory pricing should be correct.
Consumers could choose from more than 2 million applications, from Apple's 500 App Store applications from the App Store. It's part of the famous lexicon called "Related Apps to this phrase," Chief Justice John Roberts announced in a 2014 decision limiting the search by mobile search by cell phone. Apple has the phrase.
But the company says the popularity of iPhone and its App Store software does not hide consumers buying apps from developers, not Apple.
"Apple is a vendor and distributor agent for developers," Apple attorneys presented the Supreme Court. "Apple's basic argument has always been that consumers' damages are based on decision makers who make decisions, because Apple does not set the price app."
Apple takes up a 30% commission for the sale of applications, but developers, not consumers, who pay commissioners should report complaints about their pricing structure. The Trump Administration is backed by Apple in the High Court.
A court filed a lawsuit initially, but revoked the Court of the Court of the 9th Court.
Consumer lawsuits demanded a supreme court to carry out the lawsuit. Consumers will pay Apple's "App Store prices directly from the App Store" directly at the summary of the Supreme Court. Direct relationship turns Apple into a legitimate target for anti-competitive law, they say.
Apple's victory may reduce the power of the consumer to denounce abuse, although the court envisaged by the Congress would "constitute a central component of antitrust laws," warned 18 authors of the 18-law anti-trust lawsuit.
Apple Inc. v Pepper's decision, 17-204, is expected at the end of spring.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. in Apple cases over the monopoly application rule (Update)