Plaidoyer Apple Cour suprême des États-Unis

Informations

• Publié par: ActuaLitte.com
• Publié le: 30 octobre 2015
• Nombre de lectures: 121
• Langue: Français

Extrait

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,et al., Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR A W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

T HEODORE J.B OUTROUS ,J R . G IBSON ,D UNN &C RUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 91030

ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON INSIDE COVER

I N T HE Supreme Court of the United States

No. 15

S ETH P.W AXMAN Counsel of Record W ILMER C UTLER P ICKERING  H ALE AND D ORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 6636000 [e-mail]

Petitioner,

A PPLE I NC .,

v.

A.D OUGLAS M ELAMED S TANFORD L AW S CHOOL 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305

D ANIEL G.S WANSON B LAINE H.E VANSON G IBSON ,D UNN &C RUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Ave. Los Angeles, CA 91030

C YNTHIA E.R ICHMAN G IBSON ,D UNN &C RUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036

P AUL R.Q.W OLFSON L EON B.G REENFIELD P ERRY A.L ANGE A RI J.S AVITZKY * W ILMER C UTLER P ICKERING  H ALE AND D ORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006

M ARK C.F LEMING W ILMER C UTLER P ICKERING  H ALE AND D ORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109

QUESTION PRESENTED

In 2010 Apple launched the revolutionary iPad, and with it, the iBookstore, an innovative retail platform; together, they disrupted Amazon’s dominant position in the ebooks market. Apple entered with a new agency business model, concluding vertical arrangements with ebook publishers that included commonplace provi sions that are often procompetitive and unquestionably served Apple’s legitimate business objectives in offer ing consumers a new ebooks platform. Yet a divided court of appeals panel condemned Apple’s conduct as per seunlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act be cause its vertical activities supposedly facilitated hori zontal collusion among the publishers, who wished to be free from Amazon’s dominance. The panel majority de clined to follow this Court’s decision inLeegin Creative Leather Products, Inc.v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), which instructed that such vertical conduct must be analyzed under the rule of reason, and also re jected another circuit’s decision that properly followed Leegin. The question presented is: Whether vertical conduct by a disruptive mar ket entrant, aimed at securing suppliers for a new retail platform, should be condemned as per seunder Section 1 of the Sherman illegal Act, rather than analyzed under the rule of reason, because such vertical activity also had the alleged effect of facilitating horizontal col lusion among the suppliers.

(i)

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

Petitioner is Apple Inc., a defendantappellant in the court of appeals. Respondents, and plaintiffsappellees in the court of appeals, are the United States of America; the State of Texas; the State of Connecticut; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; the State of Utah; the State of Alabama; the State of Alaska; the State of South Dakota; the State of North Dakota; the District of Columbia; the State of Indiana; the State of Arizona; the State of Tennessee; the State of Nebraska; the State of Michi gan; the State of Colorado; the State of Vermont; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the State of Illinois; the State of West Virginia; the State of New Mexico; the State of Iowa; the Commonwealth of Virginia; the State of Kansas; the State of Maryland; the State of New York; the State of Idaho; the State of Missouri; the State of Arkansas; the State of Ohio; the State of Louisiana; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the State of Wisconsin; and the State of Delaware. Defendantsappellants in the court of appeals, who are not petitioners here, are Simon & Schuster, Inc.; Simon & Schuster Digital Sales, Inc.; Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH; and Holtzbrinck Pub lishers, LLC, DBA Macmillan. Defendants in the dis trict court, who are not petitioners here, are Hachette Book Group, Inc.; HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C.; and The Penguin Group, a Division of Pearson PLC, Pen guin Group (USA), Inc.

(ii)

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Petitioner Apple Inc. has no parent corporation. To the best of Apple’s knowledge and belief, and based on public filings with the Securities and Exchange Com mission, as of October 26, 2015, no publicly held corpo ration owns 10% or more of Apple’s stock.

(iii)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED ............................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ..............................ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT............iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................vii INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 1 OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................... 4 JURISDICTION ................................................................. 4 STATUTES INVOLVED ................................................. 4 STATEMENT ..................................................................... 4 A. The EBooks Market Before Apple’s Entry....................................................................... 5 B. Apple Develops The iBookstore And Enters The Market ............................................... 6 C. Proceedings Below.............................................. 10 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ...........13 I. T HE D ECISION O F T HE C OURT O F A PPEALS C ONFLICTS W ITH D ECISIONS O F T HIS C OURT A ND C REATES AC IRCUIT S PLIT .................31 A. Application Of The Per Se Rule To Apple’s Vertical Conduct Conflicts With This Court’s Decision InLeegin And Creates A Circuit Split .............................. 14 B. Application Of ThePer SeRule To The Novel Circumstances Of This Case Also Conflicts With This Court’s Precedents........... 18

(v)

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

C. The Second Circuit’s Reasons For Ap plying ThePer Se Rule Are Flawed And Inconsistent With This Court’s Antitrust Jurisprudence .................................... 20 II. T HE Q UESTION P RESENTED I S E XCEED INGLY I MPORTANT T O T HE N ATIONAL E CONOMY ..................................................................... 28 CONCLUSION ................................................................. 35 APPENDIX A: Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, June 30, 2015, as amended July 2, 2015........................................................................... 1a APPENDIX B: Opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, July 10, 2013..................... 121a

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page(s)

Barry Wright Corp.v.ITT Grinnell Corp., 724 F.2d 227 (1st Cir. 1983) ....................................... 25 Broadcast Music, Inc.v.Columbia Broad casting System, Inc.20, 25, 441 U.S. 1 (1979) ............. Brooke Group Ltd.v.Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993) .......................... 25 Business Electronics Corp. v.Sharp Elec tronics Corp., 485 U.S. 717 (1988) ...................passim California Dental Ass’n v.FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999) ............................................................... 20, 26 Continental T.V., Inc. v.GTE Sylvania, Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977) .....................................passim Denny’s Marina, Inc. v.Renfro Produc tions, Inc., 8 F.3d 1217 (7th Cir. 1993)..................... 27 FCC v.Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012) ........................................................ 30 In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Liti gation18, 618 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2010)........................... In re Musical Instruments & Equipment Antitrust Litigation, 798 F. 3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................ 18, 28 In re Online Travel (OTC) Co. Hotel Booking Antitrust Litigation, 997 F. Supp. 2d 526 (N.D. Tex. 2014) .................................. 32 In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litiga tion23, 739 F.3d 262 (6th Cir. 2014) .............................

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s)

In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 703 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2012) .................. 19, 20, 32, 33 Interstate Circuit v.United States, 306 U.S. 208 (1939) ............................................................ 33 Klor’s, Inc. v.BroadwayHale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (1959) ......................................... 14, 26, 28 Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007) ......................passim Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) ............................................................................ 32 Monsanto Co. v.SprayRite Service Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (1984) ......................................... 24, 25, 30 Northwest Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (1985) ............................................................ 25 Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v.Linkline Communications, Inc., 555 U.S. 438 (2009) ............................................................................ 30 Somers v.Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013)...................................................................... 25 State Oil Co.v.Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)................passim Toledo Mack Sales & Service, Inc.v.Mack Trucks, Inc., 530 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2008) ....................................................... 3, 13, 17, 18, 23 Town of Concordv.Boston Edison Co., 915 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ................................................ 30

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page(s)

Toys “R” Us, Inc.v.FTC221 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000).................................................... 26, 27, 28, 33 U.S. Healthcare, Inc.v.Healthsource, Inc., 986 F.2d 589 (1st Cir. 1993) ....................................... 27 United Statesv.Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) ......................................... 34 United States v.General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926) ............................................................ 23 United Statesv.General Motors Corp., 384 U.S. 127 (1966) ...................................................... 27, 28 United Statesv.United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) ...................................................... 32

STATUTES 15 U.S.C. § 1 ..............................................................passim 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)............................................................... 4

OTHER AUTHORITIES Shelanski, Howard A.,Information, Innovation, and Competition Policy for the Internet, 161 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1663 (2013) ............................................................... 6, 19 Weiner, Michael L., & Craig G. Falls, Counseling on MFNs Afterebooks, 28 Antitrust 68 (Summer 2014) ..................................... 32

I N T HE Supreme Court of the United States No. 15

A PPLE I NC .,

v.

Petitioner,

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Apple Inc. respectfully petitions for a writ of certi orari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this case.

INTRODUCTION Apple’s launch of the iBookstore as a platform for tens of millions of consumers to buy and read digital books (“ebooks”) on the iPad dramatically enhanced competition in the ebooks market, benefitting authors, ebook publishers, and retail consumers. Following Ap ple’s entry, output increased, overall prices decreased, and a major new retailer began to compete in a market formerly dominated by a single firm. As the district court acknowledged: “[H]aving the creativity and com