Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging App Store Monopoly

[MacRumors]

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Apple that alleged the company had an illegal monopoly because the iPhone does not allow users to use alternative app stores.

Apple had requested that the suit be dismissed because Apple doesn't set the price for paid applications and because charging a price for distribution of products on a platform does not violate antitrust laws.

However, the suit was dismissed on a something of a technicality and can be refiled at a later date. Bloomberg reports:

The plaintiffs failed to prove "collective allegations that they have been deprived of lower cost alternatives, paid higher prices for Apple-approved applications, or had their iPhones disabled or destroyed," [U.S. District Judge Yvonne] Gonzalez wrote. "At a minimum, plaintiffs must allege facts showing that each named plaintiff has personally suffered an injury-in-fact based on Apple's alleged conduct."

A lawyer for the plaintiffs told Bloomberg that they can refile with "no difficulty" and will argue that Apple has "cornered the distribution market for software for the iPhone".

Article Link: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging App Store Monopoly

 

[MetalMoon]

If you don't like the app store, then perhaps its time to find a different phone.

 

[captain kaos]

Apple does seem to have a carte blanche in the US.

 

[duffman9000]

Apple can disable or destroy iPhones remotely? How? Death ray?

 

[Some guy]

The plaintiffs failed to prove "collective allegations that they have been deprived of lower cost alternatives...

Apps on the App Store aren't cheap enough?

 

[Daalseth]

Yes, Yes he can...

A lawyer for the plaintiffs told Bloomberg that they can refile with "no difficulty"

And he will as long as he can keep getting paid to do it. This isn't about right or wrong. It isn't about freedom. It's about a lawyers greed.

 

[Jsameds]

Good, the whole thing was stupid anyway as it's their own platform. It's like saying Waterstone's has a monopoly on book sales in their own stores. Well duh!

 

[jav6454]

File again, thrown away again... There are several Free apps out there and several more under the Freemium business model.

 

[iMacBooked]

Good, the whole thing was stupid anyway as it's their own platform. It's like saying Waterstone's has a monopoly on book sales in their own stores. Well duh!

Lol, you're absolutely right. Nice comparison, you make this lawsuit sound even more stupid.

 

[japanime]

So, is this a new trend at Macrumors? The first comments we're going to see are from people who simply post hashtags? I sure hope not.

As for the dismissal of the lawsuit, I'll say that I'm not surprised. However, I wonder if this is positive for those of us who use iOS. I personally would like to see more app-store options that don't require jailbreaking.

 

[Cartoonkid]

Glad to see there's at least a tiny bit of common sense left in the judicial system.

Apple should countersue for legal fees (can't even imagine how much Apple's legal department gets paid!) and the judge should make the lawyers that took up this ridiculous suit pay them.

 

[DaveGee]

A lawyer for the plaintiffs told Bloomberg that they can refile with "no difficulty" and will argue that Apple has "cornered the distribution market for software for the iPhone".

"cornered the distribution market for software for the iPhone"??

Like Microsoft has cornered the market on x-box software distribution?
Like Sony has cornered the market on play station software distribution??
Like Nintendo has cornered the market on wii software distribution???

Yea....

 

[Catalyx]

I don't see how Apple is obligated to allow other app distribution systems on their own platform when there are other options for consumers in the smartphone market.

 

[sessamoid]

So, is this a new trend at Macrumors? The first comments we're going to see are from people who simply post hashtags? I sure hope not.

As for the dismissal of the lawsuit, I'll say that I'm not surprised. However, I wonder if this is positive for those of us who use iOS. I personally would like to see more app-store options that don't require jailbreaking.

There are cell phones you can buy that give you that freedom. Nobody is preventing you from buying one. The iPhone is not a "market" in monopoly terms. It's a product part of a larger market known as "smartphones", which is in itself a subset of cellphones. I hope Apple sues for legal fees when they win this one.

 

[Trius]

This is nothing but a ridiculous money grab.. What's next? Force Apple to sell Samsung phones in their stores? After all, by this logic, Apple holds a monopoly on cell phones sold in their retail stores...

 

[japanime]

There are cell phones you can buy that give you that freedom. Nobody is preventing you from buying one. The iPhone is not a "market" in monopoly terms. It's a product part of a larger market known as "smartphones", which is in itself a subset of cellphones. I hope Apple sues for legal fees when they win this one.

OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this whole situation out.

 

[Asclepio]

So, is this a new trend at Macrumors? The first comments we're going to see are from people who simply post hashtags? I sure hope not.

#firstworldproblems

 

[BigBeast]

Apple does seem to have a carte blanche in the US.

If that were truly the case, the majority of handsets I see each day wouldn't be Android; however, that isn't the case. If that were truly the case, there wouldn't be 20% Apple haters commenting on Macrumors, and 70% Apple haters commenting on Engadget. And yes, those percentages are straight out of my ass, but I feel that I'm actually being kind with those numbers, so I don't mind too much.

 

[Icy1007]

OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this whole situation out.

That had nothing to do with Microsoft refusing to bundle other browsers with Windows. It had to with the fact that they bundled IE with Windows in the first place.

#EuropeIsStupid

 

[Icaras]

Good! Vertical integration FTW.

 

[MOFS]

OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this whole situation out.

Microsoft had a near (90%) monopoly on desktop computers. They bundled IE into every computer (ultimately trying to make it unremovable) and gave it away for free in order to overtake Netscape. Apple currently has around 50% of the marker and there are clear competitors doing the same thing (Microsoft included ironically) which means this is surely a non-event.

 

[skottichan]

OK, I understand what you're saying. But how is this different than when Microsoft refused to bundle any browser other than IE with its operating system?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this whole situation out.

It's more akin to PSN on the Playstation 3 or XBox Marketplace on the 360.

IIRC (is was tiny when the whole IE Monopoly happened), it wasn't that Microsoft bundled IE, it was that they leveraged their position to force hardware manufacturers to keep Netscape off their PCs. I'm sure I missed important nuances.

 

[mdelvecchio]

McDonald's cornered the market on Big Macs

sue McDonald's!

 

[clibinarius]

If you don't like the app store, then perhaps its time to find a different phone.

If Apple successfully prevents me from installing what I want on my phone, they will successfully move me to another mobile OS.

And I believe the 10% of us who jailbreak for the most part feel the same.

 

[Cartoonkid]

That had nothing to do with Microsoft refusing to bundle other browsers with Windows. It had to with the fact that they bundled IE with Windows in the first place.

Exactly.

If Apple didn't allow any third-party apps to be sold on the App Store, then the MSFT analogy would be applicable.

But I doubt there's a single Apple-developed app that doesn't have a third-party counterpart that is either free or cheaper than Apple's app.