1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,360
Speaker 1: Well, now it's time for our daily Bloomberg Law Brief,

2
00:00:02,400 --> 00:00:05,120
Speaker 1: exploring legal issues in the news, brought to you by

3
00:00:05,200 --> 00:00:09,840
Speaker 1: American Arbitration Association. Business disputes are inevitable, resolve faster with

4
00:00:09,880 --> 00:00:13,680
Speaker 1: the American Arbitration Association, the global leader and alternative dispute

5
00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:16,919
Speaker 1: resolution for over eighty five years. More at a dr

6
00:00:17,040 --> 00:00:21,959
Speaker 1: dot org and today Bloombergy, Lahosting, Grosso and Michael Best

7
00:00:21,960 --> 00:00:24,640
Speaker 1: discuss a case against Apple like using the iPhone maker

8
00:00:24,680 --> 00:00:27,920
Speaker 1: of monopolizing the app store. They speak with Mark Rifkin,

9
00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:31,480
Speaker 1: a partner at Wolf Hathenstein and Harry First, our professor

10
00:00:31,520 --> 00:00:35,760
Speaker 1: at n y U Law School. Mark explain the issue

11
00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:39,479
Speaker 1: at this stage of the proceedings. Sure of the question

12
00:00:39,560 --> 00:00:44,240
Speaker 1: that we appealed was the district courts determination that consumers

13
00:00:44,280 --> 00:00:47,159
Speaker 1: who bought their apps on the iPhone store as they

14
00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:51,160
Speaker 1: were required to do, and paid Apple with their credit

15
00:00:51,200 --> 00:00:54,440
Speaker 1: card as they were required to do, whether they were

16
00:00:54,800 --> 00:00:58,760
Speaker 1: direct purchasers from Apple with standing under the federal any

17
00:00:58,760 --> 00:01:04,440
Speaker 1: trust laws. To bring the lawsuit challenging fee that Apple

18
00:01:04,560 --> 00:01:08,440
Speaker 1: tax onto the cost of the apps on the app store.

19
00:01:09,000 --> 00:01:13,280
Speaker 1: The district court said that the consumers were indirect purchasers

20
00:01:13,280 --> 00:01:16,040
Speaker 1: and didn't have standing, and we disagreed. We asked the

21
00:01:16,120 --> 00:01:19,560
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit to correct that decision. So, Harry, what did

22
00:01:19,600 --> 00:01:23,040
Speaker 1: the ninth circuits say about this issue? Well, basically, the

23
00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:27,000
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit said, go ahead, Um, you have standing to

24
00:01:27,160 --> 00:01:31,479
Speaker 1: sue your direct purchaser from Apple through the App Store.

25
00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:34,640
Speaker 1: Do you believe they have standing? That seems to me

26
00:01:34,680 --> 00:01:38,119
Speaker 1: to be the right decision. Um. I think it's important

27
00:01:38,200 --> 00:01:43,200
Speaker 1: that consumers have the ability to challenge um these restrictions

28
00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:46,759
Speaker 1: on their freedom to buy the products they want at

29
00:01:46,800 --> 00:01:50,960
Speaker 1: the price they want. So, Um, if the plaintiffs can prevail,

30
00:01:51,120 --> 00:01:53,760
Speaker 1: they will be able to show that they have been

31
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:57,800
Speaker 1: charged more than they should have for the applications they

32
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:01,200
Speaker 1: like to buy. So Mark has been no ruling about

33
00:02:01,280 --> 00:02:06,520
Speaker 1: the allegations themselves. Tell us about the allegations, sure, the

34
00:02:06,520 --> 00:02:13,240
Speaker 1: The basic allegation is that Apple controls the medium of distribution. Technologically,

35
00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:18,680
Speaker 1: it makes iPhones only compatible with applications that are sold

36
00:02:18,720 --> 00:02:22,760
Speaker 1: through the App Store, and it requires that developers who

37
00:02:22,760 --> 00:02:25,360
Speaker 1: want to sell apps through the App Store have to

38
00:02:25,440 --> 00:02:29,680
Speaker 1: agree to this markup that Apple imposes on all the

39
00:02:29,680 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 1: apps that are sold for a price on the App Store,

40
00:02:33,520 --> 00:02:36,640
Speaker 1: and the point of say that's anti competitive. It's the

41
00:02:36,639 --> 00:02:41,480
Speaker 1: result of Apple's monopoly, and uh, they're entitled to some

42
00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:45,880
Speaker 1: portion of that back because Apple would not be able

43
00:02:45,919 --> 00:02:49,560
Speaker 1: to charge that fee were it not for their monopoly

44
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:53,880
Speaker 1: control over the distribution channel. And as Mark Rifkin, a

45
00:02:53,919 --> 00:02:56,960
Speaker 1: partner at Wolf having Stein and Harry First, a professor

46
00:02:57,000 --> 00:02:59,600
Speaker 1: at n y U Law School, speaking with Bloomberg Laho

47
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:02,040
Speaker 1: student Grasso and Michael Best, and you can listen to

48
00:03:02,040 --> 00:03:05,120
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law weekdays at one pm Wall Street Time here

49
00:03:05,200 --> 00:03:08,359
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio, and that is this morning is Bloomberg

50
00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:10,920
Speaker 1: Law Brief. You can find more legal news at Bloomberg

51
00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:15,360
Speaker 1: Law dot com and Bloomberg b NA dot com. Attorneys

52
00:03:15,360 --> 00:03:18,280
Speaker 1: will find exceptional legal research and business development tools there

53
00:03:18,360 --> 00:03:21,480
Speaker 1: as well. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg b

54
00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:23,840
Speaker 1: NA dot com for more information