苹果核心的经济现实

Q2 Social Sciences
Tirza J. Angerhofer, R. Blair
{"title":"苹果核心的经济现实","authors":"Tirza J. Angerhofer, R. Blair","doi":"10.1177/0003603X21997030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the Supreme Court failed to recognize the economic reality at play which sparked considerable confusion and debate about the continued vitality of Illinois Brick. Apple used proprietary technology and threats to both iPhone owners and app developers to compel them to conduct their business in Apple’s App Store. In so doing, Apple created a presumably unlawful bottleneck. This enabled Apple to impose a 30% ad valorem tax on each transaction. The tax, that is, the antitrust damage, is borne by both the iPhone owners and the app developers according to the relative elasticities of the demand and supply. Distributing damages in this way leads to effective antitrust enforcement that does not reward the wrongdoer with ill-gotten gains nor lead to duplicative damages and complex apportioning. Our analysis clarifies the economic reality of the Apple case and provides useful guidance for handling future bottleneck cases.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"66 1","pages":"308 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0003603X21997030","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic Reality at the Core of Apple\",\"authors\":\"Tirza J. Angerhofer, R. Blair\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X21997030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the Supreme Court failed to recognize the economic reality at play which sparked considerable confusion and debate about the continued vitality of Illinois Brick. Apple used proprietary technology and threats to both iPhone owners and app developers to compel them to conduct their business in Apple’s App Store. In so doing, Apple created a presumably unlawful bottleneck. This enabled Apple to impose a 30% ad valorem tax on each transaction. The tax, that is, the antitrust damage, is borne by both the iPhone owners and the app developers according to the relative elasticities of the demand and supply. Distributing damages in this way leads to effective antitrust enforcement that does not reward the wrongdoer with ill-gotten gains nor lead to duplicative damages and complex apportioning. Our analysis clarifies the economic reality of the Apple case and provides useful guidance for handling future bottleneck cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"308 - 321\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0003603X21997030\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X21997030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X21997030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在苹果股份有限公司诉佩珀案中,最高法院没有认识到经济现实的作用,这引发了对伊利诺伊州砖块公司持续活力的相当大的混乱和辩论。苹果使用专有技术,并威胁iPhone用户和应用程序开发商,迫使他们在苹果应用商店开展业务。这样一来,苹果制造了一个可能是非法的瓶颈。这使得苹果可以对每笔交易征收30%的从价税。税收,即反垄断损害,由iPhone所有者和应用程序开发商根据需求和供应的相对弹性承担。以这种方式分配损害赔偿金可以实现有效的反垄断执法,既不会以不义之财奖励违法者,也不会导致重复的损害赔偿和复杂的分摊。我们的分析阐明了苹果案件的经济现实,并为处理未来的瓶颈案件提供了有用的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Economic Reality at the Core of Apple
In Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the Supreme Court failed to recognize the economic reality at play which sparked considerable confusion and debate about the continued vitality of Illinois Brick. Apple used proprietary technology and threats to both iPhone owners and app developers to compel them to conduct their business in Apple’s App Store. In so doing, Apple created a presumably unlawful bottleneck. This enabled Apple to impose a 30% ad valorem tax on each transaction. The tax, that is, the antitrust damage, is borne by both the iPhone owners and the app developers according to the relative elasticities of the demand and supply. Distributing damages in this way leads to effective antitrust enforcement that does not reward the wrongdoer with ill-gotten gains nor lead to duplicative damages and complex apportioning. Our analysis clarifies the economic reality of the Apple case and provides useful guidance for handling future bottleneck cases.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信