【考研英语】同源文详解201期最高法院击打苹果,平台独占诉讼得以…(考研英语考什么)

ⅱ “the sole question presented at this early stage of the case is whether these consumers are proper plaintiffs for this kind of antitrust suit—in particular, our precedents ask whether the consumers were ‘direct purchasers’ from apple,” the decision reads. “it is undisputed that the iphone owners bought the apps directly from apple.”

ⅲ the decision was hailed by consumer advocates like the center for democracy & technology. “today, more and more of consumers’ purchases go through platforms, where sellers and buyers meet virtually via technology, instead of in brick-and-mortar stores,” avery gardiner, cdt’s senior fellow for competition, data and power, said in a statement. “these technologies are evolving fast, and today’s decision shows that antitrust law is — as it should be — flexible enough to address allegations that companies may misuse their market strength in novel ways.”

ⅳ the supreme court’s decision to allow the case to proceed could als

o have an impact on other companies, like amazon, that prefer to frame themselves as neutral marketplaces, not direct sellers. “i would anticipate that plaintiffs lawyers will be looking at this closely and looking at tech companies and internet platforms and thinking about who they might be able to sue now that this uncertainty is gone,” says valarie williams, a partner at the law firm alston & bird

ⅴ the supreme court’s decision hinges on another 1977 case, illinois brick co. v. illinois, in which the supreme court ruled that indirect purchasers cannot seek antitrust damages, a principle now known as the illinois brick doctrine. apple used this same doctrine to argue that the plaintiffs in this case also lacked standing. apple positioned itself as merely the retail space where app developers pay to set up shop and sell their products. but in their decision the supreme court justices rejected this framing, writing that apple was arguing “strenuously” against a “simple conclusion.”　”there is no intermediary in the distribution chain between apple and the consumer,” the decision reads. “the iphone owners purchase apps directly from the retailer apple, who is the alleged antitrust violator.”

ⅵ tech companies and consumer advocates have been watching this case closely, bracing themselves for a ripple effect across the industry. but williams says the court’s decision in this case largely avoids drastic reinterpretation of the law. it does not, for instance, overturn the illinois brick doctrine by finding that indirect purchasers of a product have standing to sue for antitrust violations.

【点评】：介绍最高法院断定以及案情背就梁先介绍断定成果：答应诉讼持续推进。然后介绍案子和被告观念：iphone用户指控苹果独占；苹果认为用户无权申述自个。最终重申法院断定：投票否定苹果，答应持续诉讼。首要逻辑联接：①期间全体the supreme court voted…the case concerns a group of iphone users who accuse apple…apple argued…but…the court voted against apple…以“清楚断定成果——引出具体案子——介绍原告（苹果用户）诉求——介绍被告（苹果公司）辩词——阐明法院投票成果”的逻辑行文。②各利益有关方均多次呈现：a group of iphone users和app store customers均指案子原告；apple为案子被告；third-party developers为案子涉方。

中心要害词：allow a years-long antitrust case against apple to move forward（答应一项关于苹果独占的多年诉讼持续推进）。

ⅱ “the sole question presented at this early stage of the case is whether these consumers are proper plaintiffs for this kind of antitrust suit—in particular, our precedents ask whether the consumers were ‘direct purchasers’ from apple,” the decision reads. “it is undisputed that the iphone owners bought the apps directly from apple.”

【翻译】：“本案其时还处于前期期间，其仅有疑问就是花费者是不是这种反独占诉讼适合的申述人——特别是，咱们的断定先例会问：花费者是不是苹果的‘直接收购者’，”断定写道，“毫无争议，iphone用户是直接向苹果收购的使用。”

【点评】：引证断定原文，清楚案子中心：花费者是不是这种反独占诉讼的申述人，更具体地说是花费者是不是直接向苹果收购。首要逻辑联接：①第一句以the sole question …is whether…in particular, our precedents ask whether…构成“先指出事例其时中心疑问——后进一步清楚具体结点”的逻辑，第二句以it is undisputed that…答复上述疑问（回答首段断定成果）。②these consumers和this kind of antitrust suit别离回指首段iphone users和a years-long antitrust case。

中心要害词：the sole question（仅有的疑问）。

ⅲ the decision was hailed by consumer advocates like the center for democracy & technology. “today, more and more of consumers’ purchases go through platforms, where sellers and buyers meet virtually via technology, instead of in brick-and-mortar stores,” avery gardiner, cdt’s senior fellow for competition, data and power, said in a statement. “these technologies are evolving fast, and today’s decision shows that antitrust law is — as it should be — flexible enough to address allegations that companies may misuse their market strength in novel ways.”

【翻译】：该断定得到了民主和技能中心等花费者维护集体的喝彩。“如今，越来越多的花费者收购行为不再是发生在实体店，而是经过平台进行，在这儿，生意两边凭仗技能进行虚拟触摸。”民主和技能中心的竞赛、数据及权力高档研讨员艾弗瑞·加德纳在一份声明中说道，“这些技能在飞速打开，而如今的断定标明晰反独占法满足活络——它也本该如此——可以应对就‘公司以新的方法乱用商场优势’的指控。”

【点评】：花费者维护集体激烈撑持这一断定：技能已让如今的生意联络虚拟化（大大都收购行为在平台结束），断定闪现出反独占法在活络习气这一改变（也大约如此）。首要逻辑联接：①期间全体为“总-分”规划，首句the decision was hailed 概述花费者维护集体对上述断定的“喝彩、赞扬”，随后援引阐明。②援引有些首要比照阐明现状（越来越多的收购行为不是在“实体店”结束，而是凭仗技能在“平台”进行），随后清楚观念（其时断定标明反独占法在适应这一现状）。antitrust law is — as it should be偏重“其时断定”与“抱负景象”完全共同，体现赞扬情绪。

中心要害词：hailed by consumer advocates（得到花费者维护集体的喝彩）。

ⅳ the supreme court’s decision to allow the case to proceed could also have an impact on other companies, like amazon, that prefer to frame themselves as neutral marketplaces, not direct sellers. “i would anticipate that plaintiffs lawyers will be looking at this closely and looking at tech companies and internet platforms and thinking about who they might be able to sue now that this uncertainty is gone,” says valarie williams, a partner at the law firm alston & bird

【翻译】：最高法院“答应诉讼持续”这一断定可以会对亚马逊等其他喜爱自我标榜为中立商场平台、而非直接卖家的公司构成冲击。“我估计，控方律师们将会亲近重视此案打开，也会调查科技公司以及网络平台，而且鉴于就‘他们可以申述谁’的不断定性现已消除，他们会思考提申述讼。”alston & bird法令事务所合伙人瓦拉瑞尔·威廉姆斯说道。

【点评】：这一断定对其他科技公司的影响：那些自认为中立平台、实则直接出售的公司也会遭到影响，将来很可以接见会面临诉讼。首要逻辑联接：①期间全体为“清楚影响——援引阐明”的规划。could also have an impact标明本段将从另一方面谈论影响。②第二句中this uncertainty指代who they might be able to sue；this uncertainty is gone 指向高院断定“iphone用户是苹果公司的直接收购者、有权申述”。

中心要害词：have an impact on other companies（对其他公司构成冲击）。

ⅴ the supreme court’s decision hinges on another 1977 case, illinois brick co. v. illinois, in which the supreme court ruled that indirect purchasers cannot seek antitrust damages, a principle now known as the illinois brick doctrine. apple used this same doctrine to argue that the plaintiffs in this case also lacked standing. apple positioned itself as merely the retail space where app developers pay to set up shop and sell their products. but in their decision the supreme court justices rejected this framing, writing that apple was arguing “strenuously” against a “simple conclusion.”　”there is no intermediary in the distribution chain between apple and the consumer,” the decision reads. “the iphone owners purchase apps directly from the retailer apple, who is the alleged antitrust violator.”

【翻译】：最高法院断定参照的是1977年的“伊利诺伊砖案（illinois brick co. v. illinois）”，在该案中最高法院断定直接收购人无官僚求独占抵偿，这一原则如今被称为“伊利诺伊规则”。苹果援引同一规则辩称本案原告也无权申述。苹果声称自个只是是使用开发者们付费开店卖其产品的零售场所。但最高法院在断定中驳回了这一辩解，写道：苹果是在“极力”否定一个“简略的结论”。“苹果与花费者的出售链上并无中心人，”断定写道，“花费者直接从零售商苹果公司——被控的反独占违背者——处收购。”

【点评】：具体阐明最高法院和苹果公司的观念交锋。本案可学习的断定先例：伊利诺伊规则（illinois brick doctrine）规则直接收购者无权申述独占案子。苹果公司：自个与用户是直接收购联络（因而用户无权申述）。最高法院：花费者和苹果公司是直接收购联络（因而有权申述）。首要逻辑联接：①期间全体以the supreme court’s decision hinges on another 1977 case…apple used this same doctrine to argue…but…the supreme court rejected…为 “介绍其时案子可学习的断定先例——指出苹果对先例的援引——阐明法院对苹果的驳回”。②第二、三句别离介绍苹果的观念（the plaintiffs in this case lacked standing）、论据（positioned itself as merely the retail space）。③第四、五句别离介绍高院的全体观念（rejected this framing，其间this framing回指positioned itself as merely the retail space）、具体说明其观念（the iphone owners purchase apps directly from the retailer apple与苹果的观念完全敌对）。

中心要害词：decision hinges on another 1977 case（断定参照的是1977年的案子）。

ⅵ tech companies and consumer advocates have been watching this case closely, bracing themselves for a ripple effect across the industry. but williams says the court’s decision in this case largely avoids drastic reinterpretation of the law. it does not, for instance, overturn the illinois brick doctrine by finding that indirect purchasers of a product have standing to sue for antitrust violations.

【翻译】：科技公司和花费者维护集体一向在亲近重视本案，预备迎候触及整个作业的涟漪效应。但威廉姆斯标明，最高法院对本案的断定很大程度上避免了对法令进行激剧的从头阐释。例如，本案并未推翻“伊利诺伊规则”、判决产品的直接收购人有权申述开罪反独占法的行为。

【点评】：总结全文，做出评价。案子的涟漪效应可以会影响到科技公司和花费者维护集体，因而他们都在亲近重视此案发展；但其时的法庭断定避免了对法令做出推翻性说明。首要逻辑联接：①句首consumer advocates和tech companies别离照顾四、五段，总结指出有关方可以遭到影响。②but致使转机，谈论对法令的影响，其间avoids reinterpretation of the law和does not overturn the illinois brick doctrine从广泛到具体，指出直接收购者有权申述的法令实际并未改动。

中心要害词：ripple effect across the industry（触及整个作业的涟漪效应）。