Did the District Court err in denying leave to amend a first-to-file developer antitrust lawsuit concerning free digital apps, when Petitioner Dr. Jeffrey Isaacs had never amended his complaint once as a matter of course, and no Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) factors were analyzed?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the District Court err in denying leave to amend a first-to-file developer antitrust lawsuit concerning free digital apps, when Petitioner Dr. Jeffrey Isaacs had never amended his complaint once as a matter of course, and no Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) factors were analyzed? 2. Does the tying of digital software distribution stores to the iPhone device by Apple Inc., represent pernicious conduct subject to the per se antitrust rule established in Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958)? 3. Does Apple’s contrived digital notary stamp represent a modern-day stamp tax which facilitates gatekeeping and censorship of software distribution, violating Northern Pacific tying rules? 4. In light of Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), and its established precedent on the significance of exclusionary conduct in Section 2 claims, beyond the confines of market definition, was a Rule 12 dismissal for purported market definition defects of free apps improper? 5. Is the failure of the current Brown Shoe pricing formulas to define free digital products as a relevant market, as practiced by Apple Inc., indicative of a need for the Court to revisit the original text of the Sherman Act or to refine the application of Brown Shoe? li QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued 6. Does Ninth Circuit Hicks vs. PGA Tour case law bypass mandatory fact-finding requirements under Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962), contrast with economic reality and established jurisprudence, and improperly exonerate the largest monopoly in history at the pleading stage? 7. Did Apple advance knowingly disingenuous positions that violated the sanctity of the oath, including irreconcilable objection to and endorsement of Epic’s relevance, and misrepresentation of Microsoft exemption for per se tying platforms?