A New Understanding of Who Is a Direct Purchaser Based on Apple Inc. v. Pepper
Jacob Mitchell A group of consumers sued Apple in 2011 alleging that Apple had violated antitrust laws through their monopolization of their App Store. In trying to dismiss the suit, Apple asserted that consumers, despite purchasing apps directly from Apple through the App Store, did not have standing to sue them as monopolists because the consumers were actually buying from the app developers. The Supreme Court rejected Apple’s argument in its 2019 ruling in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper. By rejecting Apple’s view, the Supreme Court has expanded consumers’ available remedies by clarifying that consumers that buy directly from a distributor are...
Applying Antitrust in Digital Markets: Foundations and Approaches
Mark Jamison This paper analyzes the conflicts that arise when trying to apply traditional antitrust principles in the context of digital markets. Antitrust has both political and economic foundations. The political approach emphasizes populist themes that ultimately harm economic development, whereas economic approaches focus on characterizations of and remedies for market power. Digitization of markets thwarts current antitrust tools by adding complexity and rapid change. Several authors suggest populist approaches for antitrust in digital markets, but these lack rigor and fail to address central challenges. This Article suggests that antitrust should return to its earliest roots and directly address features...
Apple Bites Back: An Antitrust Analysis of Qualcomm’s Licensing Practices
Marie Weisfeiler Both Apple and the Federal Trade Commission filed lawsuits against Qualcomm alleging antitrust violations. Specifically, both alleged that Qualcomm used its monopoly power to engage in unfair licensing practices and create an exclusive deal with Apple, in violation of its industry commitment to use fair practices in licensing its patents. This essay compares Qualcomm’s practices to those of Microsoft in 1998, which, because of Microsoft’s restrictive licensing and exclusive deals, were deemed to have violated the Sherman Act. It then considers the implications for licensing, technology, and antitrust law if a similar case is litigated in the future....
Svyazinvest: A Failed Attempt at Creating a Big Contender
Steven M. Chernoff Russia’s attempts to introduce large-scale competition into the Russian telephone industry got off to an encouraging start in late 1995 when a public offering of shares in Svyazinvest, the holding company representing the government’s 51% stake in 85 of Russia’s 87 regional operating companies, attracted the bids of several foreign investors. But a promising set of negotiations with the Italian state telephone company ended in an imbroglio at the year’s end, turning imminent success into sudden, dismal failure. Ever since, Svyazinvest has been widely considered an unattractive investment, and the failed negotiations prompted concerns that Russia was...