Interpretation Of Antitrust Laws Case Between Apple And Pepper In The US Supreme Court

You need to write an amicus brief for a case that is currently being heard by a Court in the United States. First you need to do some research to find a current case you are interested in and have an opinion on which way the Court should rule. Then you need to research that particular case. 

• What question is before the court?
• Why does the case interest you?
• What is the background the case?
• What are the facts of the case?

The question before the court

There exist many cases pending in American courts. Some of the cases are pending in lower court as a score of them are in the supreme court. There are different reasons why many cases have not been solved. One of the reasons is the clash in the interpretation of the constitution while others are because of delayed responses from the interested parties. In this assignment, it is going to develop an amicus brief for a current court case in the United States. It will begin by illustrating the case then why the case is unusual, the background of the case and lastly the facts about the case.

In this situation, the issue before the supreme court is that, is it legal for the consumers to sue anybody that distributes goods to them in antitrust damages even though they need damages basing on the prices the third party have set according to Rubinfeld, (2015), and they are the one responsible for the alleged offences? The case is concerning Pepper and Apple as the main parties. It was registered on June 18th 2018. However, the hearing of this case is set on November 26th 2018 according to Avdasheva & Kryuchkova, (2015). Many people have been giving their views concerning, but the two parties have not reached an agreement. The main issue here is relating to the antitrust laws that need the attention of the third-party sellers. The interpretation of the law is another crucial issue in this case; every party is standing on their own claiming that they are the once who are right. Besides the above matters, another critical article that needs interpretation, in this case, is the Illinois Brick Doctrine that the supreme court established in the year 1997 through the support of Illinois Brick Cooperation according to Gal & Rubinfeld, (2016). In the doctrine, it illustrated that indirect consumers of goods and services do not have the right to article III that they need to ensure antitrust charges to producers of various products and services. After several years of establishment, the law is facing interpretation concern. Every party is interpreting it differently. The App Store and Apple Inc are clashing on the matter. However, it is essential that the hearing and the determination of this case will depend on the capability of lawyers and the judge hearing the case. It will be an essential task to the judiciary because its other parties rely on the ruling of the courts to use as their future references.

The reason why the case is interesting

The case concerning Apple and Pepper is outstanding in my case for various reasons. The first issue is that the case has gone through multiple steps since its mentioning in court. The disagreement between Apple and Pepper started with the introduction of iPhone. The coming of iPhone angered other business partners, and they filed a case in court. The first case was filed in the Northern District of California Court. One of the contents of this case at this preliminary was that the Pepper claimed that Apple has gone against the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Apple company became the only dominant in the App Store Marketplace according to Sokol, (2017). Apart from that argument, the second disagreement according to the complainant in the case was that the Apple industry had monopolized the iPhone market through restricting the type of sim card the iPhone users insert on their devices. The Apple users were only allowed to make use of the AT & T mobility cellular network as their only sim card according to Jakhu & Malik, (2017).

Consequently, the Apple Industry responded to the case in various ways. The first is that it tried to dismiss the claims citing multiple articles of the constitution. For instance, they claimed that the applicant of the case could not prove that the iPhone users purchased the devices from the app store thus means that the claims are illegitimate in reference to Rosenthal & Knighton, (2017). Secondly, in the case according to the Article III of the law, the applicant claims did not have any grounds because the evidence it had placed before the court could not prove that the apple industry has violated any act of the constitution. All the arguments of the participants, in this case, makes it exciting and need some time to analyze. It is now a matter of interpretation of the rule of law.

The case between Apple Inc. and Pepper began with the introduction of iPhone in the year 2007 in reference to Davis & Lande, (2017).  In the same year, Apple company introduced marketplace where several third parties who can develop and give mobile apps to the customers who are using iPhone. However, these developers can provide the mobile users with the mobile apps at a fee or offer for free to promote their sales and their companies in general. In the case the developers charge a certain price to the apps they develop, the Apple company is entitled to take home thirty per cent of the money the customer pays.

Background of the case

Consequently, Galbraith, (2017) argues that many companies were not happy with Apple because of their approach they have brought in the mobile industry. Many companies claim that before the developers sign an agreement with Apple, there are restricted rules that the developers should follow. For example, when the developers upload their apps in the app store, they are restrained from selling the same apps to other companies. Many companies saw the strategy as a way that Apple wanted to create a monopoly in the market according to Baker & Scott Morton, (2017). The challenge to other companies was that many developers who used to develop and distribute to them apps have raised the price of the apps making it unaffordable to other companies. On the other side, the apple company stood on its ground that there is no law it has violated. For instance, many companies talked about antitrust laws. When Apple is charging thirty percent commission on every sale, it shows that it is reselling the same apps, an action which other companies are considering unlawful. Other companies went to court, however, at some point the district court decertified the case, but the companies insisted that the judiciary must address the matter and they appealed on the same case.

The main issue, in this case, is the interpretation of the antitrust laws. From the confession of other companies, they are suffering because of the Apple company. The developers of the apps have doubled the price of their services. However, Apple is getting thirty percent profit. From the look of things, the company is indirectly the seller in the industry. The issue of monopoly is coming out apparently in reference to Bageri & Katsoulacos, (2017). The other companies may not continue to exist in the market because the prices of gods are higher and they may not get profit from whatever they are selling. However, another notable issue is that there is a loophole in the law that will require the interpretation of the judge. As the participants eagerly wait for the ruling of the case in the coming days, it is important to note that, the district court dismissed the case because the claimant failed to approve that there was a breach in the constitution. The ruling of the facts will depend on the capability of the lawyers to prove there is misconduct of the law and the need to interpret the law.

Conclusion

The question before the supreme court needs serious scrutiny. The act of the Apple company introducing the marketplace has interfered with other companies. The ruling on the case should be biased but depend on the interpretation of the federal law.

References

Avdasheva, S., & Kryuchkova, P. (2015). The ‘reactive’model of antitrust enforcement: When private interests dictate enforcement actions–The Russian case. International Review of Law and Economics, 43, 200-208.

Bageri, V., & Katsoulacos, Y. (2017). The market power requirement in antitrust enforcement and its usefulness. Economia e Politica Industriale, 44(2), 145-159.

Baker, J., & Scott Morton, F. (2017). Antitrust Enforcement Against Platform MFNs.

Davis, J. P., & Lande, R. H. (2017). Restoring the Legitimacy of Private Antitrust Enforcement.

Gal, M. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2016). The Hidden Costs of Free Goods: Implications for Antitrust Enforcement. Antitrust Law Journal, 80(3), 521.

Galbraith, J. (2017). American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power. Routledge.

Jakhu, G., & Malik, P. (2017). Dilemma in antitrust enforcement: how use of economics can guide enforcement rules in multi-sided markets. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement, 5(2), 260-275.

Rosenthal, D. E., & Knighton, W. M. (2017). National laws and international commerce: The problem of extraterritoriality. Routledge.

Rubinfeld, D. L. (2015). Book Review: The Microsoft Antitrust Cases-Competition Policy for the Twenty-First Century. Journal of Economic Literature, 52, 374.

Sokol, D. (2017). European Competition Law: Enforcement or Regulation after Intel?.