Apple wants China to alter an antitrust ruling it already won

AppleInsider

Apple scored a win when China ruled in its favor over an App Store antitrust suit, but now it seems to fear that its victory could backfire.

iOS App Store

In May 2024, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court took Apple's side in a case alleging that the App Store's 30% commission was unfair. The court found that the fees were not "significantly higher" than in app stores running on Android.

However, according to Bloomberg, Apple has taken the very unusual move of requesting a change in the court's written ruling. The firm has asked the country's Supreme People's Court to strike certain references in the text.

Specifically, it wants the court to strike all references to Apple's "dominant position." There is also a phrase that says "unfair pricing may hurt consumers," and it wants that removed too.

At stake is the possibility of future lawsuits that cite this ruling as precedent. Apple appears to want to avoid this case effectively establishing it as having a greater market share than its rivals.

The size of its market and therefore its dominance is universally included in every anti-trust case that Apple faces. In the US, Senator Warren has called its approximately 50% share of the smartphone market a monopoly.

Similarly, though less nonsensically, the European Union's Margrethe Vestager described Apple as being a dominant player in the high end market.

"I think what we see is that there are indeed very different and very separate markets when it comes to smartphones," she said, "and [a] very high end, very expensive phone is not in the same market as a very, you know, affordable, cheaper phone."



Read on AppleInsider

avon b7

A lot of people will have a field day just with the notion of Apple trying to get court rulings altered to suit its needs/wishes. 

If the references it wants eliminated are there, they are there for a reason. 

I'm guessing the option exists. If it didn't, they wouldn't be asking but I can see why it might backfire in PR terms. 

22july2013

avon b7 said:

If the references it wants eliminated are there, they are there for a reason.  

That's true. The reason it is there is to protect Chinese smartphone companies. Do you really think Apple's 16% share (that's third place) in China is "dominant" against the others' 84%?

avon b7

22july2013 said:

avon b7 said:

If the references it wants eliminated are there, they are there for a reason.  

That's true. The reason it is there is to protect Chinese smartphone companies. Do you really think Apple's 16% share (that's third place) in China is "dominant" against the others' 84%?

How does it protect Chinese companies? All of which, except one, use Android.

The dominant position is clear (Android, HarmonyOS and iOS) but the decision was on abuse of that position. 

The case was brought by an individual and I believe the ruling has been appealed. 

danox

avon b7 said:

22july2013 said:

avon b7 said:

If the references it wants eliminated are there, they are there for a reason.  

That's true. The reason it is there is to protect Chinese smartphone companies. Do you really think Apple's 16% share (that's third place) in China is "dominant" against the others' 84%?

How does it protect Chinese companies? All of which, except one, use Android.

The dominant position is clear (Android, HarmonyOS and iOS) but the decision was on abuse of that position. 

The case was brought by an individual and I believe the ruling has been appealed. 

The majority in human history always Gaslight themselves into believing the smaller group is dominant......and then go on a witch hunt.