Hey, I'm rhine, reynolds at mid mobile. We like to do the opposite of what big wireless does they charge you a lot. We charge the little so naturally, when they announced that we raising their prices. Due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating you that's right. We're cutting the price admit, unlimited from thirty dollars a month to just fifteen dollars a month. Give it a try. men, mobile dot com, slash switch new, activate an up payment for three month plan required taxes and fees. Extra additional restrictions apply seem at mobiles outcome for full terms, hey, I'm right reynolds at mid mobile. We like to do the opposite of what big wireless does they charge. You a lot we charge the little so naturally when they announced that we raising their prices. Due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating, you that's right. We're cutting the price, admit, unlimited from thirty dollars a month to just fifteen dollars a month, give it a try men, mobile dot com, slash switch new activate.

an upfront payment for three month plan required taxes and fees. Extra additional restrictions apply, cement, mobile dot com for full terms, nobody's. You have an abridged asked. This week's interview episode is over different. Where do two parts The first I've atty roberts in here had a tank, so you may have heard apple lost the case, the supreme court. This week, the cases apple, vs pepper, the If we're suing apple for monopoly pricing in the app erase the saying apples, thirty percent cut is overpriced. Consumers are paying it that's the point In any case. This report very narrowly was not about that. It was right whether consumers could see apple at all, so adding! I actually interviewed the plainest lawyer, and talked to him in a minute, but it's so complicated that I just want to spend a few minutes with atty explaining what the hell's going on to atty, what the hell so this is the simple version we will get into the more complex earthen later, but basically and twenty eleven robber, pepper and other people said. Look if you buy

I found you have One choice to buy apps apple only will let you buy apps in its appstore, and charges a thirty percent commission to developers. Therefore, these two members are probably passing the costs onto us consumers, so you have one choice you have to buy this thing here and this company is driving up the price. That's all and be decided at some point far in the future, because The last eight years have been about is whether they are allowed to do so. There is a nineteen seventies doctrine that was about bricks. Then says above rick's is called illinois burka and its that if you are not a direct customer of someone who is running a monopoly, you cannot see them. The idea was that, if but he get sued for anti trust, like literally every person who has ever dealt with them can't sue them. So in illinois break? It was ok. If you bought bricks from the sky, you can sue.

if you bought a house that was bought with someone else's contract work. Who then bought the bricks from someone else. You cannot sue you, the celebrate manufacture yes, so apples argument was we make the bricks and europe the people with the house. We provide a platform to developers. The developers are customers and you are buying things from the developers who may or may not be charging prices that you may or may not want to pay, and this case yesterday the ruling said. Look, that's ridiculous. You are engaging in a transaction with apple and cool really this is not equivalent to some person. Far up the chain: apple you're, just splitting hairs. Let's let this thing continue decision I read. It was cabin on the four liberal justices, which is interesting because cabinets, not illiberal justice and the supreme court.

It was, the four liberal, justices and cabinet cabinet wrote the decision and he seemed, I would say mad. Definitely The last line of decision is is this is why we have antitrust law. He accused apple of gerrymandering, he's like four splitting hair, I mean you should read it out. He wrote a piece about it. You can read the lincoln short it. Eminently readable. I said yesterday, sweet cover rights if a truck which nobody I know him. I think trucks are fine, but he's just a very blunt. He likes beer. You sound like is pathetic forthright writer. The short sentences and he just barrels through them. So it's very readable he seemed really annoyed with apple for trying to say look. We just we sell to developers the access to our storefront. We don't sell apps to atkins to the consumer, which, from my perspective, is a ridiculous thing to say, like it's called the app store consumers give their credit card to apple. They buy apps from

Or if you have a customer service problem, you talk to apple. Is there any validity? The idea that apple should should be considered break company. You know- and I break the descent from this, which was written by neil gore such argument was the other trump appointed instrument menaces. While this is a huge split already. So there's that argument basically- Ed look. There was a utility to this illinois, brick doctrine, and the purpose was so that you aren't required to face all of these lawsuit from all these different people So now apple is: maybe the developers consume them. Maybe the customers can sue them. If they don't know

and so, if you get to other more complicated retail set ups than yet, you have no idea who might sue you. You might end up coming up with these extremely arcane set ups to avoid liability, like you try to make clear that you are not the developer like you are not the person the customers dealing with in ways that make the whole system less efficient. That's the sort of counter argument, and hence also the people who oppose this, like the episode creation, some other industry groups are basically saying: look you're, gonna, open up all these companies up to liability and are not really getting anything conquered. In return, they have the opportunity to sue them at something it like. The plaintiffs here got something. Their argument is that the opportunity susan, is not necessarily going to get them much. It will not make the appstore better. You will not see lower prices. Obviously the majority of the court doesn't necessarily think and we have no idea whether the actual monopoly claim is true. Yet there is a first for the case right with eighteen, three involved

this case actually grew out of multiple other cases, and originally this launched bright around the time the iphone did, and if you remember that point the iphone launched exclusively on eighteen tee, so they were also making the case that by only being able to get data and voice service through to a t and t that was it's own kind of anti competitive behavior that got shot down. There were more lawsuits, every thing happened, Then, date years later, we ve got this case. That's narrowly tailored to the upstairs, It does seem to me that saying a phone carrier shouldn't have exclusives just seems ridiculous to me and find this cases wound its way up and down the court. The supreme,

but so much has changed in the intervening years. That suing a t and t for having an exclusively iphone in two thousand and seven was like flatly ridiculous, but suing apple for having a monopoly on app store. Pricing and twenty nineteen just seems of a piece with everything else. That's happening right now. It seems very timely. Do they just luck out? Possibly it is always possible that the supreme court is theoretically influenced by the prevailing winds of and especially if one of the justices was appointed, like literally the ethical cattle on, so it's that is theoretically possible, that there are also been antitrust cases going on for years and snow, but but there is a larger moment now right, Elizabeth Warren, once a break up all the big tech company, she wants to break the app store from apple. She said it very clearly their spotify in suing in Europe there is just the general backlash to facebook existing in any way shape,

form is this? All of a piece is a moment. Is this can have some like huge impact? We think, philosophically this is definitely targeting some of the same big questions It is also important to note that this does not have a bunch of ramifications for any reason you would suit tat company. It specifically dealing One reason that people could not sue if they are part of a specific class in an anti trust case. If you want to sue facebook for kicking you off or, for mistreating you as a consumer or you want to sue or, if you're a developer, and you want to sue a platform. You have always been able to do that. This basically changes one specific thing: it does not change the larger landscape of the many many many legal challenges over various facets of tech companies? yeah. I think that's actually really important to note like the way supreme court, precedence, work and the way forward, opinions because is they try to be as narrowly tailored as possible.

And here we're literally applying a seventies era, precedent about the sale of bricks to the sale of applications on the iphone and it it doesn't seem like you can spread that much whiter than that at this point in time. How does this track with what's happening with spotify in Europe? Is it the same idea? Is it different? I think that is hard to necessarily compare the doctrines that are that we're dealing with here, especially because we're just dealing with literally whether you're able to sue but spotify. As far as I understand, it is also sort of upset about subscription models which are subtly different. Like at this point, apple charges different rates for them that's sort of in app purchases. It's not literally whether you can put a piece of software onto the phone right- okay, so let's say so apple last year, pepper in everyone, because it's a class action but pepper, and that the plaintiffs class

prevailed. They're going to sue again played out like what what happens next excellent. Then we should talk to mark and see what he has to say. But what? What do you think that the actual impact for consumers is going to be? So if we fast forward through all this and they decide look apple- is a monopoly. It is driving up prices. You should not be able to do this, then, theoretically, apple's going to to come up with a new model potential. Something that is more like the android placed or which will hear more about later, There you have one main system that is the safest place to get your apps. That's the place that most people go to, but you can also maybe side load things or you can maybe have an alternative, app store and also, obviously, they want money for anyone who bought and up in the last many many years yet the view of the lawyers you're not just after pure justice. Then everyone some cash. Ok, we can back where, in fact, a mark rifkin so managed

partner, wolf, wolfe, the law firm, the just be apples from court. I got it out he's right now he just wanted from courts disease. He's in a good mood. pretty hard to check this out. Hey, I'm rhine reynolds at mid mobile. We like to do the opposite of what big wireless does: they charge you a lot. We charge the little so naturally when they announced that we raising their prices due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating you that's right. We're cutting the price admit unlimited from thirty dollars a month to just fifteen dollars a month, give it a try men, mobile dot com, slash, switch new, activate, an upfront payment for three month plan required taxes and fees. Extra additional restrictions apply cement, mobile dot com for full terms. hey, I'm right, reynolds at mid mobile. We like to do the opposite of what big wireless does they charge you a lot. We charge the little so naturally,

when they announced that we raising their prices due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating you that's right. We're cutting the price admit unlimited from thirty dollars a month to just fifteen dollars a month. Give it a try men, mobile dot com? Slash, switch new alchemy an up payment for three month plan required taxes and fees. Extra additional restrictions apply seem at mobiles outcome for full terms. So I'm here with me rifkin, whose managing partner, wolf, halden, seen in an m joined by, have you ever seen the verge of senior porter work required in apple versus pepper case about appstore monopoly pricing. You represent pepper. You represent the class to six who exactly represent sure I represent about plaintiffs, indicate who are iphone customers who also bought apps for their eyes but I also represent more importantly, I also represent all the purchasers wherever they may be. Who who bought

I found out for their iphones at any time since, since the former is introduced in two thousand seven, What is this in its right now? They ve got an iphone. They bought an app last week there, theoretically nuclear, They are members of the proposed class. That's right! Well, I have ever this is mark. This is your lawyer, sure it's a nice referendum. In its most mean everybody. You A big win this week at this report issued a decision, the composition of the judges on The majority is, is very interesting lines without but of effectively. This report said you, in your ear class, the plaintiffs have standing to sue apple for pressing the aps. Orkney short of explain how we got here. What that decision needs assure sure, there's a there's, a longstanding principle in any trust law there, Only a direct purchaser from an alleged monopolised has standing

to sue the defendant for wrongful conduct, and that was decided in nineteen. Seventy seven case called Illinois breck. So literally what the supreme court decided yesterday was then under illinois, brick iphone owners or direct purchasers of apps from apple and thus head standing to sue apple for the alleged monopolization of the market for the iphone apps, apples argument in the opposite was clean? No, we you don't buy, acts from us at vendor, show up they put out in the store. We charge them a fee, but you are finally buying apps from the software developer and that supreme court, through that apple said that they provided distribution. Service too, the app developers but we were really transacting with the app developers on the store and the supreme court rejected that argument saying that,

we shopped on the app store where apple forced us to shop we paid all the money to apple directly, because that's what apple insists, under any point language, understanding of that transaction. We more direct purchasers of iphone apps from apple from us, normal people, what kind of coming. In the case, you ve into is. Ok, we can sue you, you haven't gotten to apple, has a monopoly over the app store or that monopoly is leading to unfair outcome. right? Maybe that's the heart of your case, but you're just it. Ok were allowed to see you What we have right now is: we have a green light to be able to proceed with a litigation, but it's an important hurdle, because it was the last roadblock that we had declared four were able to start with marriage discovery, which is the part of the game,

we're we're going to try to collect evidence from apple to prove our claim. So there's been a pretty dramatic shift in the tech landscape in how the big tech companies are perceived between then and now, certainly two thousand and seven and as a drastic shift for even two thousand and eleven and now that's it's quite a long time. The sort of antitrust activity in interest in big ten companies is going up. You have Elizabeth Warren saying she would break up apple or split them apart from the app store. Is anything deep dc out affecting the case in the moment here. I think that as time has gone on and we ve seen especially over the last eight years, we require vacation two thousand eleven. We ve seen explosive growth in the app store and that doesn't just reflect the grow. from the popularity of iphone apps. It also reflect apples, iron

fisted control over the distribution of the aps. If, if you want the plaintiffs, alleging architects, if you want put an app on your iphone, you have only one choice and that the two shop for the up on the app store and ass. discovered or road in in his opinion. Yesterday, the only other as you have is not put out on your iphone, and so I do think that the concentration of control in the hands of a single company, whether a tap or any other company is going to help us not just to prove our case, but I think also to be able to demonstrate that this is the wrong sort of thing for the for e commerce and for the economy generally so there's. Obviously some technical limitations, ted putting an app on a phone right apple has to have a store. Are you suggesting that there should be injunctive relief

an apple should be allowed to have other stores on the phone. We are asking for an injunction to stop. What we think is the unlawful monopolization of the distribution network for iphone apps take take the take the drawing paradigm you can. If you want, you can shop on Google play for an android out, but you don't have You can buy an app directly from an app developer. You can- from another website. You can buy it from many other locations. You don't need to go to google play to put an output an app on your android device the only reason you need to to the app store, put an app on your iphone is because where apple wants you to shop.

And the reason for that seems pretty obvious to us. The plaintiffs alleged it's so that apple get to charge a super competitive price for the apt, obviously, apple mates, a bunch of arguments as to why the first one is. This is how we validate the security and safety of life on customers. The second is, you don't like it. You can go by an android phone and the third is- and in fact most people in the world have bought android funds right that the iphone is not the dominant platform by any measure now that you are able to sue apple? How are you going to arguments? Let's take the last one. First, the fish The case that only relates to applications for the iphone- it's it's what's known as a single product market, and when you make the choice to buy an iphone or an android phone, you we, you mock yourself into one economy or the other you can. You can either start to buy android apps for your android phone or iphone acts for your iphone.

You buy an iphone uk by android apps and vice versa. So when you make that disease and two by the phone of your choice. You now have to shop for the acts that work on a phone, unlike the android model, where you can shop anywhere for an android up in the I found world, you have to shop up at the app store to that's number. One number: two: with respect to the idea that what you're paying for is apples security features or or their somehow their value, add that'll? Be their defence in another, be their justification for what they do and were perfectly prepared to meet that we'd. We don't think that they'll be able to prove that they provide any significant value by buying bye and consumers to shop when a single source for iphone apps but that'll be up to them.

I to prove that and the notion that they have a some small fraction of the market. It just it's. It's nonsense. It makes no sense to us at all. Why does it? Why does it make no sense to you because they have locked? The the phone completely were features they built into the phone so that, if you want to shop for an eye, you have no choice. You can beat me you can't buy it anywhere else, you're forced to buy it on the app store, so you're saying that the the fact that apple only has you know some sub fifty percent share in the. U s is not important right because they have one hundred per cent share of either donors, eggs exactly you, you put your finger on it exactly. The fact that they have a fifty percent market share of smartphones doesn't mean don't have a hundred percent share of the distribution of iphone apps, which they absolute

we do it is it is a near complete, perfect monopoly for the market for iphone apps, which is the relevant market in our case, but isn't it just a push in this? Not what people are buying. This self contained product were apple controls that distribution. If, if consumers unhappy about this. In other yourself, on contract in a roll over two years, and I can just go by an android get much if you ve already guy an enormous investment of money in in the device it off and you ve got a significant, invest of money in the in the acts that you put on the phone and that investment makes it much more good for you to switch to another to another model and, frankly, it's no defence to claim that for unlawfully monopolized the market for iphone apps, to say that you switch two years from now. If you want to absorb all those costs, deduce out that doesn't justify apple charging. A super competitive price bore apps,

on the app. So how far do you think arguments that you're making here generalised to other platforms. You'd mentioned, Android android does things a bit different but say: do you see someone being able to sue android for a certain form of exclusivity. Does this generalised to say gaming console? Should microsoft be required to bad sort of alternate xbox stores So I think the answer to the question is the principles that that we are looking at, certainly that the court's decision yesterday is generally applicable to any other platform. It's not right. to mrs nodded at an apple, specific or ice iphone specific decision. It's it's general decision. I think, for that reason it's an important decision protecting consumer rights under the anti trust laws. or a majority. That is just as cavenaugh writing for the majority said two or three times how important it is to the supreme court that consumers be to indicate their rights under the federal. Any trust was so that number one number two

a practical matter in in those smartphone space apple really goes about its business. Quite unlike the way android market goes about its business. Google, for example, Google go much by apps. For google phones and you can buy an uproar sampson phone anywhere. You want, you don't have to buy an app from from Google play, and so I think, in the real world right now, at least only company that does business the way apple does business. Is mean outside the world of phones. How much do you think that if say the merits of this case, you went on them. This applies to other parts of the tech industry to say web platforms that are, marketplaces or again, like dimension into gaming councils, the sort of other lockdown tech devices. How far does this go? Well,

take the principle that the court, an out that a consumer who buys directly from an alleged monopolised and and pays, his or her money directly to the alleged monopolised, for the monopolized product has stand to sue that defendant under the fair Any trust. I think that principle is a general principle and it would apply in in any economic or setting. Let me make that more specific, so about the xbox you can only buy xbox games from the digitally from microsoft, and then some even also you can go by a desk right from another retailer and would thus you get the disclosure. there. But now there is a discus xbox that I just mentioned. So now there's an xbox where he can only buy games digitally from microsoft. Do you think those consumers under this ruling have standing outstanding issue? Microsoft,

you're gonna have to forgive me, because I don't know enough about the xbox a platform to be able to answer the question with a hundred percent certainty, but if, if what you're telling me is that, in order to pay a game on your xbox council. You have to buy that game from microsoft. And you do you have to shop on a platform microsoft makes you shop. and you pay your money directly to microsoft. I think under the core decision in apple versus pepper yesterday. If there were the anti competitive conduct their consumer could soon microsoft for that anti competitive conduct as a direct purchaser from microsoft. Let me just try to make the split really clear. So before a week ago, every xbox had a blue, I drive and you could goaded by best

and you could buy an optical desk and put an xbox that, under your reading of that decision, yesterday means that there's two retailers for software for the xbox right. and they would be, presumably they would be competitors correct, even though microsoft has to approve move every game that runs on the because you can buy the game from best buy and you can buy it from microsoft and you can buy it from amazon. It's fine cause, there's at least some rational to be tells me now there's an xbox without a disk drive. It just came up that one. Obviously you can only by the games for did, leave from microsoft, because that's the only digital storefront you saying that would fall into this ruling. Theoretically, monsieur. I can be a bit more precise about that. The principle that the poor announced yet it is just a standing principle and that that if someone alleges that microsoft is a monopoly

and someone alleges that the market it monopolizes is the market poor for game For the act box, council like we allege that apple is a monopoly, We like that the market is the market, poor I followed applications to be very specific in and in the anti trust law. You really need to look at a couple of things you need to look at who the monopolise is, and you need to look at what the market it. But if, worse, the market is game. Before xbox councils, then there's still petition, because you haven't told me that there is a different market for digital games, verses, blu ray disk games? If there is a different matter, In other words, you know what I'm saying. Yes, there are the same

games available either digitally or or on blu ray or their different games that are available only only on blu ray and not on the digital platform, Vice Versa, only on digital platforms, definitely digital only games the mark. It has to include all reasonable substitute products, so affairs. If them it is purely digital and microsoft is engaging in some kind of monopoly conduct. Then then, yes, if you are forced to buy from micro, and you by your product from microsoft- and you pay your money to microsoft and the market is just those games that microsoft distributes electronically, then I think- have standing under the supreme court's decision yesterday? You would have standing to sue microsoft for that alleged monopolization, but I dont know nearly enough about the platform or that market able to say whether I think there's a claim- or I don't think, there's claim it's just a question of state

being in the supreme court said yesterday, it's a simple bright line test. Did the consumer by directly from the alleged monopolised and pay his or her money directly to the alleged monopolised. If the answer to those questions is yes, then I can see. Standing to sue that alleged monopolised. I I can't begin today. ride with the claim may be, but at least I can tell you that the answer to the standing question gotta try to be so technical, but It's a really narrow technical decision. That decision court reached yesterday. Now I appreciate it, that's the shows is all about nerdy out in so it's. Okay good? I actually want to ask you about the decision in the composition of the majority. He had the four liberal, justices and cabinet, and he actually split from gore such in particular, who is regarded as an equal, deeply concerned to judge how did you get cabinet to come over to the liberal side of the of the majority,

I'm always has to use the delay. I'm liberal and conservative, because I don't think that they apply equally in every setting, and I think this is business setting where, where justice cap I saw it. Imitation of a statute and of the Supreme court's forty two years of precedent now under that, when I rule that I told you about or the way we saw it, and I think it's it's the correct way to see it. The court has consistently said we look at at the structure, the transaction- we walker who buys the monopolized product from whom and we give standing to the person who deal directly with the alleged monopolies and applying the principle the way the court has applied for forty two years in this case that points to

consumers who, by the act from apple on the app store and paid our money to apple through the app store they have standing and that's exactly what the five justice is on. The court said yesterday that the fact that there is a disagreement about how the principle should be applied- and it seems to fall on the left right spectrum. I think that's just coincidence. I don't think this is a liberal workers What kind of an issue- and I Don'T- I don't think you can- you- can look at opinion and save it justice, cabinet or switch. In any in any real, meaningful sense? I think it's just how you look at the statute and the and the case law that the supreme court has decided forty two years and then see how the case was decided that way now spotify suing apple in Europe, for

similar idea right, which is right rightly there being illegally well out of the store, bingley repressive, store that this comes from a different theory of an atrocity? theory of competition it it's maybe started from a common predecessor with us, with his diverged rapidly do. Do you think this is Can I help you out your inevitably gonna back this report again when he actually looking at the merits here? Do you think that activity in europe is gonna help you out enhance its no. I don't think so. I think I think the laws. traditions are very different. I do think that atmosphere ugly. It helps us because Everybody now is looking at apple, and so I think from from that standpoint, from the idea that You know apples coming under closer and tighter? it'd all over the world, batched better helpful fact, but I don't think it helps us on the merits of the case. So, if apple offers you a settlement, let's say it's a very good settlement. Do you take

or do you want this to go all the way up the courts and set a precedent. I think which important here first of all, we set an important legal principle which we clarify an important legal principle. Yesterday the supreme court's decision was a very important one because it is very pro consumer and it's very concerned. Protective in an environment where consumers, increasingly losing their rights to big corporations. I think that the Supreme court's decision yesterday was sea change in IRAN that trend number one number two? We we have been litigating this case for twelve years and we are- it already, giving this case retrial and all the appeals will apple will throw our way back said. That said, if you ve apple, is prepared to provide meaningful relief to consumers that the end love

the unlawful practice and compensation the most for their injury, then we would be foolish not to listen to that kind of an approach to wait if I may really clear about that use, and the unlawful practice comedy consumer. So if apple shows up and they do the classic class action thing where everybody got an iphone, gets four dollars and twenty cents you're. That's not good enough. You want them to actually change how the iphone works. You want them to open it up to other stores. I think they need to change the way they're doing business. You will not settle for anything less than the button that says. Allow other, for- and I was- I can't predict what the future is going to hold in this case. I dont know how the law is going to develop. I dont know how the evidence is going to unfold, but about- I will tell you that we are. We are not interested in making the problem go away for apple were interested in protecting the rights of the consumer we ve been representing for twelve years, I want to push on that one last time

in an interview given us so much more time. So this how computers work now right. There's a world like and I found an xbox playstation What you are buying is access to a library of software right, you're right, the hardware they can run software. That is, proved invented by a large company on your behalf in amazon fire tablet you get the fire store in. You don't get the place If you buy an android phone, the vast majority of consume hers is never gonna hit the button. says allow suffer from outside the postwar. Mostly, what they're selling the value proposition of these devices of modern, smart mobile devices in particular, is related to the existence of the store that is integrated with the device. Well, I'm not sure, I'm not sure I agree entirely with that, but I think there are plenty of devices computers being

For example, you don't you know by When you buy a doubt you you, don't you know by software this route, No doubt you by software, in its written for a pc and in its true that most for now is written for pcs and from acts interchangeably so that the same software is compatible with bout. I understand. I understand your question that in some instances, you're buying a system if you're buying vhf or betamax or whatever. Maybe I get that I understand that a smart tv that run the road well ass. I dont think you can go out in the world and find other appstore front. I mean like the implication of the standing here is actually mushroom. Larger then. Ok, now you can sue it basically, case, the entire model of software distribution. Has arisen. His physical media has gone away, but the principle here is very simple: it does just because you have a platform brad.

or developers going to have to be writing software, for it doesn't mean that you get to be the only place you can buy it and it doesn't mean you get the baby by virtue of that control that you get to charge a super competitive price for it? That's that's exactly what are anti trust laws are intended to pray and end at why, for example, you know that microsoft had problems when it was in banning certain software in its operating system. Couldn't do it the court, There are limits to how much control coming. Like apple, can exert over the sale of secondary acts that are used with the primary products that they sell, which in this case is obviously the iphone The idea that we can litigate our way into smartphones working like laptops, does actually we're shouts the stars and very interesting to me, but that to me it seems like the heart of the dispute

it's coming right. I think it is a major feature of of the cases, the extent to which who is entitled to control night? Not just the software that runs on its device, but also the sale of software that the issue that we're getting an accessory court says you're standing what happens next year? back in the district court. What what? What? What's the next turn for people who are working well technically, technically. We have a shortstop in the court of appeals, because that, wherever that were the case last week, one apple petition for this report court to hear the appeal. So it goes back to the night circuit and then we will only spend a short time there before the ninth circuit sends it back to the district court, where we will then resume the litigation and that you're full on the discovery. Now what what's the next step?

It's it's my belief that a that we will go back and we will begin marriage discovery, that's right taxiing, and how long do you think this is going to take? we started in two thousand and seven, it's twenty nineteen. Do we get a resolution in two thousand and twenty? Are we looking at twenty? Twenty? Nine? Oh? Well! Let's hope it's, not twenty twenty nine, but but I think twenty twenty is probably ambitious for the case. two to run its course, but but let's hope it's closer to twenty twenty one, and it is to twenty twenty eight years: If Elizabeth Warren wins the presidency and implements are planned to break apart, tat companies, including apple, she told me directly that that would turn into I don't know whether that was a Elizabeth ones plan or not. But I'll take your word for number two. If she breaks up apple, that's all well and good it doesn't. It doesn't do anything to compensate the consumers we represent for the billions of dollars about the bay in super competitive prices for the last twelve years. So so the answer would be no,

it will mark. Thank you so much for all of the time and will hopefully, as this case goes on. Oh yes, we'll get started Of course? Ok, it's a pleasure! Thank you very much for your interest. In the case. What I was more rifkind for more homogeneous, we're gonna, have a back years, runs out Thank you, daddy, thanks very fond to talk about. Addy is reporting on this for the verge. You can see her articles in the show notes. I get the feeling we're going to be doing a lot more reporting on antitrust and tech, so watch out for atty on that big news. Why did you push that button with Caitlin and Ashley's back this week with season four there's gonna want to start season. Four they're talking about blue bubbles, vs green bubbles and deter bonus on the episode so check that out, that's in the podcast stores, nah monopoly and widow any progesterone. You go, get it check it out, so we find any kansas Russia has for free and fair progress. Operators tap the lincolns shown instigating upsurge in please monopoly not just leave a rating interview, apple pie, gas,

it's a new thing to track our show. So we love it. If you give us five stars, review on apple podcasts were back on friday to discuss all the other things that are happening. Tech, which is this week, is not to see you on friday, the hey, I'm ryan reynolds at mid mobile. We like to do the opposite of what big wireless does. they charge you a lot. We charge the little so naturally when they announced that we raising their prices due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating you that's right, we're cutting the price admit unlimited from thirty dollars a month to just fifteen dollars a month. Give it a try. men, mobile dot com, slash switch new alchemy, An upfront payment for three month plan required taxes and fees. Extra additional restrictions apply cement mobile dot com for full terms,. Hey, I'm right reynolds at mid mobile, we like to do the opposite of what big wireless. Does

They charge you a lot. We charge the little so naturally when they announced that we raising their prices due to inflation, we decided to deflate our prices due to not hating you that's right. We're cutting the price admit unlimited from thirty dollars a month to just fifteen dollars a month, give it a try men, mobile dot com, slash switch new, activate an upfront payment for three month plan required taxes and fees. Extra additional restrictions apply, cement mobile dot com for full terms