Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

How can this be irrelevant to this part of the case if this is precisely why, as per Apple, end users don't have standing? The court rejects this argument and points out that who sets the prices is actually a technicality, which is less important than who buys from whom.


The parent comment is not talking about standing in a meaningful way. It talks about whether Apple should be "liable for the monopolistic effects"

"liable for the monopolistic effects" != standing. Standing is literally about "who has the right to sue at all".

Not whether they are liable or not. That comes later.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: