When the policeman, to control the driver, sitting on a horse, then the race car owner can still drive so often about Red. He need hardly fear to be held accountable. Vigilante, try with the tools of yesterday to keep the traffic hooligans of today in check – as experts described in the past few months, the delicate burgeoning efforts in the United States, the big Tech empires with the antitrust laws. The tool box come from the times of the classical industrial groups and fail in the face of new business models from Silicon Valley.
The latest signs that could change, and the mood towards the Tech-rotates corporations, is now one of America's highest court, the Supreme Court. In a tight decision, it ruled that iPhone users are the manufacturer of Apple be allowed to sue because of possible violations of the monopoly regulations.
The plaintiffs are suing the group to have a monopoly created by he denied the users of its products, to buy Apps elsewhere than in its own App Store. Other manufacturers allow their users to install Apps on the devices, which were purchased in another Shop. Apple will charge the App developers a fee of 30 percent on the revenue in its App Store. This costs more, the provider, of course, to the customer. For the plaintiff a clear-cut case: Apple taking advantage of its monopoly position, whereby the end-customer a financial loss arising.
Apple, in contrast, had argued previously, it could not even be the target of such a lawsuit, because they cannot sell the Apps Yes. The developers did that, it was something like a platform that enables this trade. The US Supreme court is not convinced: "We do not agree," wrote judge Brett Kavanaugh in his grounds of judgment. "The plaintiff bought the Apps directly from Apple and thus are its direct customers."
Long Wait for a judgment
The court stressed that this was not a decision about whether or not Apple have actually formed a monopoly, and this is exploited. It is in this judgment only to the question of whether Apple can be sued because of this thing at all. In a response to the ruling, Apple now wrote, from a monopoly could be no question. The App developers were free to determine the prices for their products, and have in addition a whole series of platforms to choose from, you could sell your Apps.
Should find a court in the actual case, that Apple has used a monopoly position to the detriment of its customers, should have to reimburse the company hundreds of millions of dollars to its customers and perhaps even the principle of the App Stores change.
However, now is expected to take years before a verdict is concluded. And the admission of the lawsuit against Apple is of great importance for the Tech industry. This is to judge Kavanaugh. Its appeal to the Supreme Court by U.S. President Trump last October, had it given against him raised allegations of sexual Assault big dispute. Now Kavanaugh is at the center of attention, because his vote in this case, the rash.
is changing the attitude of the main court?
Kavanaugh surprisingly agreed, together with the four-rather than liberal-assigned judges for admission to the lawsuit, the other four as a conservative force judges voted against it. Kavanaugh, also a Conservative, would have voted with them, would be Apple losgewesen the thing. In the past, it had been shown again and again that liberal justices antitrust against legal action against large companies are more open than their conservative colleagues.
Although the Supreme Court is likely to be occupied for years to come, the majority of conservative, suggests in this judgment, it may be a change in the attitude of the court to antitrust actions against the Tech companies. It should now be easier for customers to sue Tech companies because of the potential for antitrust violations.
For Professor Mark Patterson, who has written a book about antitrust law in times of the Internet economy, is the judgment of the Supreme Court is only the first small step on the way to more stringent antitrust rules in America. Because this judgment is based on the question of whether the customer is a grown-up a financial disadvantage. America had to finally realize that the rules of fair competition can be broken and then, when ostensibly no money flows. Then the way would be free to take companies like Google or Facebook under the magnifying glass, as the EU is doing it for some time.
Great hopes that this happens soon, not Patterson: "It's damn hard to convince people that you are ripped off if the stuff is in vain."
Created: 14.05.2019, 21:20 PM