the supreme court heard oral arguments for apple inc. v. , which could decide if a group of iphone app purchasers could sue apple for antitrust damages over its apple store and pricing scheme. this is one hour. >> the argument first this morning in case 17204. apple inc. v. pepper. >> thank you mr. chief justice and may it please the court. thisnly damages in monopo

the supreme court heard oral arguments for apple inc. v. pepper, which could decide if a group of iphone app purchasers could sue apple for antitrust damages over its apple store and pricing scheme. this is one hour. >> the argument first this morning in case 17204. apple inc. v. pepper. >> thank you mr. chief justice and may it please the court. thisnly damages in monopolization is in a 30% commission that apple charges developers, which allegedly causes rice is to increase for consumers. brickse is barred by the doctrine, because they pricing acisions are necessarily in causal chain that links the commission to any consumer damages. if the commission increases beyond the competitive level, developers do not change their apps prices. consumers suffer no damages. if app developers do change their prices to pass on some or all of the overcharge, that is precisely the kind of damages they read that the illinois rake doctrine prohibits. anyn your view, is there first buyer in this picture? >> there are two different buyers. there the app develo

apple inc. v. pepper. mr. wall. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the only damages in this monopolization is in a 30% commission that apple charges developers, which allegedly causes those of developers to increase prices. the case is barred by the brick doctrine, because they pricing decisions are necessarily in a causal chain that links the commission to any consumer damages. if the commission increases beyond the competitive level,

announcer 2: the supreme court heard oral arguments for apple inc. v. pepper, which could decide if a group of iphone app purchasers could sue apple for antitrust damages over its apple store and pricing scheme. this is one hour.

the district attorney to accept and expend an in-kind gift estimated at approximately $17,000 from apple inc. to further law enforcement strategies related to retail theft for september 20, 2018, through september 20, 2019. >> president cohen: supervisor fewer is the sponsor of this and i'll give her the opportunity to speak on it. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, colleagues. i think this is a usual accept and expend in-kind gift authorizing the district attorney's office, so we can have a brief presentation, but i don't see any complications. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor. i'm archie wong, an attorney with the san francisco district attorney's office, and we are requesting that the entire board support our acceptance of these items from apple. they will continue to assist us and our ongoing efforts to combat property crimes in san francisco. thank you. i'm available for questions. >> president cohen: appreciate that. supervisor? >> supervisor fewer: yes, seeing you're the only report, i think we should take public comment, but after that i'd like to just make a motion to approve this w

apple inc. v. pepper. mr. wall. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. the only damages in this monopolization is in a 30% commission that apple charges developers, which allegedly causes those of developers to increase prices. the case is barred by the brick doctrine, because they pricing decisions are necessarily in a causal chain that links the commission to any consumer damages. if the commission increases beyond the competitive level, developers do not change their apps prices. consumers suffer no damages. if app developers do change their prices to pass on some or all of the overcharge, that is precisely the kind of damages theory the brick doctrine prohibits. overcharge, that is precisely the kind of damages they read that the illinois rake doctrine prohibits. anyn your view, is there first buyer in this picture? >> there are two different buyers. there the app developers who by are buying a apple package of services which include distribution and software and testing and so forth and the plaintiff in this case are the buyer of the apps themselves

apple inc. v. pepper. mr. wall? thank you, mr. chief justice, and may i please the court.

inc. >>> apple stock down more than 20% over the past three months now it's looking pretty cheap.gh to support the stock and fuel a rebound he's here. he's ready cnbc's senior markets commentator, we're not bringing on any juniors, freshmen, sophomores we've got the senior market commentator. >> i'm asking the question the stock is back to -- how far back do you think you have to go to get where the stock shot up april. so it's down a lot it's down something like 30% the valuation is down a lot because earnings estimates have not come down that much. we have a chart of the forward pe multiple of apple which by the way reached a multi-year peak a few months ago. there you see how it has basically collapsed. it's down about 13 based on the coming 12 months earnings. it's an -- not growing net income that much it's doing a lot of buybacks and financial engineering in getting some pricing that is help iing. of course it's a china risk and buybacks have been oversold to investors because they're buying back a ton and has not really supported the stock yet. so all those things i think p

apples phone sales have slowed. they have stopped reporting unit sales. we are going into the christmas and holiday season and i incto be more promotional. it might just be a short-term push the drive sales. but the concern from investors will be, is this promotional or more aggressive pricing going to be something that's more long-term, and if so, that goes into the pricing story, which had really been a bull case for apple investors. even though unit sales were slowing, the product still has a lot of pricing power, which may be getting challenged. ♪ >> the u.k. parliamentary committee published internal facebook documents wednesday, revealing deals that may have given third-party developers access to personal data. the documents include emails for mark zuckerberg, indicating that facebook shut off access to data required by competing apps, while also sharing it with those that encouraged more time on the platform. they are not selling data, but they are certainly leveraging it. >> what is in these internal documents is astounding. they basically show that they spoke -- that facebook give special treatment to apps