AntitrustLawsuit
Latest
Google will reportedly separate shopping service after antitrust fine (updated)
Google is reportedly separating its price-comparison shopping service into a standalone unit after getting fined for a record-setting $2.8 billion by the EU after a legal battle over antitrust practices. The internet titan appealed the decision, but will comply with the EU court's order to allow competing shopping services access to the page-topping ad slots at the top of search results, sources told Bloomberg.
Apple hits Qualcomm with two more antitrust lawsuits
Just days after hitting Qualcomm with a $1 billion lawsuit, Apple is doubling down with two more antitrust lawsuits against the chipmaker. As Reuters reports Wednesday, the latest pair of suits were filed by Apple's subsidiary in China, alleging Qualcomm "abused its clout" in the industry and that the company never made good on its promise to cheaply license its patents.
EU expected to file antitrust suit against Google
The Wall Street Journal reports that after a half decade-long investigation, the EU's chief antitrust regulator will be moving forward with a case against Google for reported violations of European law. The official declaration is expected to take place tomorrow when EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager meets with rest of the European commissioners. The complaint stems from a number of continental shopping and travel sites which assert that Google manipulated search results in order to better promote its own brands at their expense. The search behemoth has attempted to settle the case repeatedly since it began in 2010 but to no avail. Should Google be found guilty of the charges, it could theoretically face fines totalling more than $6 billion dollars.
Judge approves settlement for Hachette, Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins in e-book lawsuit
It's a big day in the world of e-books, and not just for the crew at Amazon. Today, Judge Denise Cote approved settlement terms for three of the publishers accused by the Justice Department of price fixing. Hachette Book Group, Simon & Schuster and HarperCollins each agreed to settle with the government, rather than face trial -- as Apple, Macmillian and Penguin Group will do in June of 2013. As part of the settlement agreement, each of the publishers will be required to terminate their contracts with Apple within one week. Similarly, they will be required to end contracts with other e-book retailers where clauses exist that would hinder the seller's ability to set pricing. Further, the settling companies won't be able to form contracts for the next two years with e-book retailers that would hinder the seller's discretion to set pricing. During the settlement approval period, individuals and companies alike were given 60 days to weigh in on the matter, which included objections from the American Booksellers Association, the Authors Guild and Barnes & Noble. Ultimately, Judge Cote determined that arguments against the settlement were "insufficient" to block the approval.
E-book price fixing trial set for 2013: Apple, Macmillan and Penguin prepare for courtroom brawl
The Justice Department meant business when it accused Apple and five other publishers of price-rigging e-books, and are officially taking Cupertino and two publishers to court. In a hearing on Friday, Judge Denise Cote set a bench trial for June 3, 2013, putting Apple, Macmillan and Penguin Group on the defense. The government's allegations focus largely on agency pricing, which sees booksellers taking a 30 percent cut of each sale in lieu of buying the books at wholesale and setting their own prices. Apple and Macmillan have already denied the Justice Department's claims, of course -- but that wasn't on the stand, was it?
iPod owners notified of RealNetworks-related lawsuit's class action status, given chance to cash in (updated: not Real)
Remember the 2005 lawsuit over Apple's effort to keep RealNetworks' Harmony DRM off of the iPod, calling the countermeasures an abuse that locked customers into Apple's FairPlay copy protection and the iTunes Store? You're forgiven if you don't -- the complaint was filed in 2005. Even with iTunes having gone primarily DRM-free over three years ago, though, owners of iPods bought between September 12th, 2006 and March 31st, 2009 are just now getting notices that they qualify for a slice of any damages if they register and Rhapsody's former owner the class action group wins in court. Of course, there's no guarantee that RealNetworks former Rhapsody users will win and get you music money to feed your iPod, iPod classic, iPod nano or iPod touch, but unless you're planning to sue Apple yourself, there's no penalty for a legitimate claim. Update: RealNetworks has chipped in to let us know that it's "not involved in any way" with the lawsuit, which is actually an independent complaint centered around the Rhapsody users themselves. RealNetworks hasn't embroiled itself in a legal fight with Apple to date.
India launches antitrust investigation against Google
Google remains tied up in a censorship case with the Indian government, and things aren't looking rosy for the search giant in the interim period before its May 23rd court hearing. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Competition Commission of India is launching an antitrust investigation of Google to examine the company's alleged "discriminatory and retaliatory practices relating to AdWords." The antitrust probe follows a complaint from Consim Info Pvt. Ltd., an Indian web conglomerate which apparently requested that the Competition Commission step in to ensure fair competition in online advertising. The exact reach of this investigation is unclear; the commission will initially focus on AdWords, though it's keeping the door open for examining other Google services as deemed necessary. Hear that sigh? That, friends, is the sound of Google gearing up for one long Indian summer.
Justice Department formally charges Apple, big five publishers in e-book price fixing case (update)
The Justice Department has formally decided to sue Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster over alleged e-book price-rigging. Apple and Macmillan have already denied any wrongdoing, saying that the agreements were enhancing competition in an industry previously dominated by Amazon. The case centers around a deal to switch to agency pricing, where the vendor takes a 30 percent cut of each sale rather than the wholesale model which allows stores to sell books at rock-bottom prices. It was previously believed that the publishers had cut back-room deals with the Government agency after bowing to pressure to withdraw Cupertino's "favored nation" status. If successful, the DoJ will allow Amazon and Barnes and Noble amongst others to return to the wholesale model to sell best-sellers at a loss, something that the big five are desperate to avoid, and will look to fight the battle in court. Update: The PDF of the DoJ's filing is now available online -- it makes for fascinating reading. Update 2: Bloomberg is now reporting that Simon & Schuster, Lagardère SCA's Hachette Book Group and HarperCollins have settled with the DoJ over unspecified terms. Hasty!
Justice Department preparing Apple iBooks antitrust lawsuit
The Justice Department is reportedly preparing to go after Apple, Simon & Schuster, Hachette, Penguin, Macmillan and HarperCollins following its investigation into alleged e-book price-rigging. The case centers around a deal to switch to agency pricing, where the vendor takes a 30 percent cut of each sale, rather than the wholesale model that gives publishers more flexibility to reduce prices or even sell e-books at a loss. Some publishers are now trying to agree on a new policy in an effort to stave off the kind of federal suit that nobody wants to wear.
Intel settles antitrust lawsuit with New York attorney general, pays hardly anything
Intel's three-year tussle with the state of New York finally came to an end yesterday, with a settlement of relatively harmless proportion. Under the arrangement, Intel will have to shell out a mere $6.5 million to resolve a 2009 antitrust lawsuit filed by then-attorney general Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo, who has since ascended to the seat of governor, had accused the chipmaker of intimidating PC manufacturers and handing out billion-dollar kickbacks, as part of what he called a "systematic worldwide campaign" to assert its market dominance. The case has since been helmed by Cuomo's successor, current attorney general Eric Schneiderman, but its sails lost a lot of wind when U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark barred the state from seeking triple damages, limiting its claims to a three-year period, rather than the four-to-six that the state had been pursuing. As a result, Intel suffered only the slightest of financial blows.According to Reuters, the $6.5 million sum represents just five hours worth of profit for the company, which reported a net income of nearly $13 billion last year. Intel was pleased with the news, pointing out that the agreement doesn't require it to admit any wrongdoing. Schneiderman, on the other hand, seemed notably less enthusiastic, with office spokeswoman Jennifer Givner telling reporters that the state's lawyers still think they have a case against Intel, but "in light of the court's decision believe that no purpose is served by pursuing the matter further."
FTC won't ask Intel to break up
The Federal Trade Commission may have a pretty big beef with Intel, but it looks like won't be going as far as to seek a breakup of the company. That word comes straight from the director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, Richard Feinstein, who flatly told reporters yesterday that the FTC has "no goal of breaking up Intel." In case you missed it, this follows a lawsuit that the FTC filed against Intel earlier in the day yesterday, which alleges that the company has engaged in "anticompetitive tactics." As you can see above, NVIDIA has already responded to that development in its usual manner. [Image courtesy Intel's Insides / NVIDIA]
