The dissent's opinion is very weird. All of the justices agree that developers are suppliers, Apple is the seller, and the consumers are the buyers. They all i

The dissent's opinion is very weird. All of the justices agree that developers are suppliers, Apple is the seller, and the consumers are the buyers. They all implicitly agree that buyers have standing to sue sellers who illegally use a monopoly to overcharge the buyer. But - somehow - that is no longer true if the seller also overcharges their supplier. Then the dissent says that any harm is "passed-through" the supplier. Huh? The buyer isn't buying from the supplier, they're buying from the seller. If any harm passes from the seller to a supplier, then the only way for it to get back to the buyer is for it to then flow back through the seller to the buyer. AKA the overcharge is still coming from the seller.