/article-new/2013/03/NewImage1.png?lossy)
Apple has asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Apple has an illegal monopoly because the iPhone does not allow users to use alternative app stores by default, reports Bloomberg.
Attorneys who filed the suit in 2011 claim that a monopoly exists because an iPhone user who doesn’t want to pay what developers charge for applications available through Apple’s App Store can’t go anywhere else to buy them. Apple requires iPhone software developers to turn over 30 percent of what they charge for an application, increasing prices and excluding competitors from the iPhone “aftermarket” of applications, they claim.
Apple doesn’t set the price for paid applications, and charging a price for distribution of a product on a new and unique platform doesn’t violate any antitrust laws, said Dan Wall, Apple’s attorney, at yesterday’s court hearing in Oakland, California.
The plaintiffs argue that because a consumer can't buy Angry Birds for the iPhone from an alternative app store, Apple has an illegal monopoly and is reducing consumer choice.
This isn't the first time Apple has been accused of running an illegal monopoly. The iTunes Store and iBookstore have previously been the subject of lawsuits. This lawsuit was originally filed in 2011, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland).
Top Rated Comments
They do know that having an iphone isn't compulsory, don't they? Other phones are available and they are free to choose one of those. Muppets!
The "If you don't like it, leave" doesn't fly with Monopoly investigations.
The "If you don't like it, leave" doesn't fly with Monopoly investigations.
You can't be a monopoly in and of yourself. Your cable company is not required to support downloading of other sources to the cable box you get from them.