Here's the actual decision: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/14-15000/14-15000-2017-01-12.html http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appel

Here's the actual decision: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/14-15000/14-15000-2017-01-12.html http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/14-... Most of the document is about the complex procedural history of the case. The meat of the new decision is on page 20 onwards: > Apple argues that it does not sell apps but rather sells “software distribution services to developers.” In Apple’s view, because it sells distribution services to app developers, it cannot simultaneously be a distributor of apps to app purchasers. Apple analogizes its role to the role of an owner of a shopping mall that “leases physical space to various stores.” Apple’s analogy is unconvincing. In the case before us, third-party developers of iPhone apps do not have their own “stores.” Indeed, part of the anti-competitive behavior alleged by Plaintiffs is that, far from allowing iPhone app developers to sell through their own “stores,” Apple specifically forbids them to do so, instead requiring them to sell iPhone apps only through Apple’s App Store. ... > [W]e rest our analysis, as compelled by Hanover Shoe, Illinois Brick, UtiliCorp, and Delaware Valley, on the fundamental distinction between a manufacturer or producer, on the one hand, and a distributor, on the other. Apple is a distributor of the iPhone apps, selling them directly to purchasers through its App Store. Because Apple is a distributor, Plaintiffs have standing under Illinois Brick to sue Apple for allegedly monopolizing and attempting to monopolize the sale of iPhone apps. (IANAL)