anticompetitive
Latest
Victory in Valencia: Android tablet maker gets Apple's iPad design lawsuit dismissed in Spain
Apple's taken its war on Android around the world and has won several battles recently, but the latest news from Spain isn't so rosy for Cupertino. Last year, Apple filed suit against Spanish firm NT-K, alleging it was infringing Apple's iPad design-related IP. Shortly thereafter, Apple scored a customs ban on NT-K's tablets, but yesterday a Spanish court decided to dismiss Apple's legal complaint and set NT-K's Gingerbread slates free. Victory in hand, the company plans to pursue a civil suit against Apple for damages caused by the ban. Score one for the green bot army, let's see if Samsung and HTC can follow their fellow Android OEM to the courtroom winner's circle.
AT&T asks court to dismiss lawsuits filed by Sprint and C Spire Wireless
Well, look at Ma Bell now, wishing it'd all just go away. Tied up in lawsuits, the company has filed motions to dismiss the two complaints brought by Sprint and C Spire Wireless (formerly Cellular South), which seek to block AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile. In the filings, it's argued that the two providers represent their own interests, rather than that of the public. AT&T further reveals that C Spire had pursued private negotiations prior to the lawsuit, where the regional provider agreed to support the merger "if AT&T would agree not to engage in facilities-based competition in Mississippi." Ma Bell goes on to state, "This inappropriate proposal confirms that what Cellular South fears is competition, not lack of competition." Given the latest maneuver (which smacks heavily of PR spin), there's no doubt that lawyers for Sprint and C Spire will have a bit of homework for the weekend.
Cellular South files antitrust lawsuit against AT&T over proposed T-Mobile takeover
Sprint and Uncle Sam aren't the only ones taking issue with AT&T's proposed acquisition of T-Mobile, because Cellular South has a bone to pick, as well. Yesterday, the provider filed a lawsuit against AT&T in a DC federal court, charging that its $39 billion merger with T-Mobile would violate US antitrust laws. "The merger of AT&T and T-Mobile is anti-competitive, and will result in consumers facing higher prices, less innovation, fewer choices and reduced competition," Cellular South said in a complaint. The company went on to argue that legal evaluation of the merger must incorporate the perspectives of smaller, regional carriers who, like Cellular South, will "find it harder to secure both wireless devices at competitive prices and times and nationwide roaming." An AT&T spokesman declined to comment on the case, but you can find more details about it at the source link below, or in the full press release, after the break.
Google's South Korean offices raided over alleged antitrust violations
Google's South Korea offices have been raided once again -- this time, over alleged antitrust violations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) stormed Google's Seoul offices on Tuesday, amid claims that the company unfairly stifles competition by making its search engine the default option on Android handsets. South Korea's largest mobile search operators, NHN and Daum Communications, filed a complaint with the KFTC in April, claiming that Android is "systematically designed" to discourage users from switching to different portals, and that Google excludes competitors by delaying OS certification for phone manufacturers that attempt to pre-load devices with other search engines. Similar charges, as you may recall, fueled an FTC investigation in the US, where anti-competitive allegations have been flying around for a few months, now. Google neither confirmed nor denied that yesterday's raid took place, but a spokesperson said the company would "work with the KFTC to address any questions they may have about our business," adding that its OS does "not require carriers or manufacturers to include Google Search or Google applications on Android-powered devices."
Department of Justice probe eyes Sony's rechargeable battery business
After the headache-inducing bout of hacking woes that beset the corporation in recent weeks, a new Department of Justice-led investigation into Sony's US electronics division may have the company emptying that aspirin bottle. Details of the inquiry are scarce at the moment, but with the company's cooperation confirmed, all signs lead to an alleged price fixing of its rechargeable battery business. Citing data from a Tokyo-based research firm, a Bloomberg report indicates that a 2010 market surplus had Sony Electronics (amongst others) lowering battery prices at the expense of less financially-cushioned players. The notorious sector of the multinational's operations has been in the hot seat before -- namely, for actual laptop explosions -- but this time 'round the judicial maypole, it seems the Japanese giant may have been partaking in some anti-competitive shenanigans. If the DoJ hammer does happen to fall on Sony's already bowed head, the company could be facing a very expensive slap on the wrist and a fundamental change to its business practices. Luckily for Sony, we happen to believe in a little something called "innocent until proven guilty."
FTC to put Google under a microscope, try to uncover anti-competitive ways?
Google's drawn the ire of the Federal Trade Commission before for failing to follow its own privacy policies. Now, however, the Mountain View crew is apparently facing a formal inquiry from the FTC as it seeks information about Google's search and advertising business. The civil investigative demands are set to be sent out within the next five days, according to the Wall Street Journal, and the commission will be looking into whether Google's search engine illegally routs all those internet eyeballs scanning its site to its own services instead of those offered by competitors. Sound familiar? It should, because Google's under investigation for similar anticompetitive accusations made in Europe -- somewhere Steve Ballmer is smiling.
Internal emails reveal Google's desperation over Skyhook's Android deal with Motorola
While Skyhook's lawsuit against Google has been ongoing since September, we've yet to hear the latter's side of the story to fight back anti-competition claims. That's all changed now that a Massachusetts state court has published a collection of internal emails from Mountain View, shedding some light on the reasons behind Motorola's -- and apparently Samsung's as well -- abandonment of Skyhook's XPS location service on its Android phones. In particular, soon after the deal was announced in April 2010, an Android product manager became worried that such a deal would pull more manufacturers away from Google's Location Service, thus jeopardizing the company's ability to maintain and improve its location database through continued data collection. "That would be awful for Google," wrote the manager. Fair enough, but here comes the juicy part of the story: in the following month, Google informed Motorola that it wasn't happy with the way Skyhook blends location data from WiFi, GPS, and cellular signal. Or in Google's words: this is data "contamination." Despite Motorola refuting such concern, a week later it informed Skyhook that Google had told Moto that its choice for a third-party location service "renders the device [Droid X] no longer Android Compatible." It's not exactly clear what this compatibility issue is, but it's believed to be the ultimate reason that forced Motorola -- being a close pal of Google -- to drop Skyhook's XPS in favor of Google's Location Service. If you're still not feeling sorry for Skyhook, then note that last month Google called this "a baseless complaint" and a "thinly veiled fishing expedition" for internal Google documents and emails. Funnily enough, one email quotes an Android manager saying it was obvious to phone manufacturers that "we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we want." Question is: which direction will the club swing now that the two companies are battling it out in court?
Microsoft lodges antitrust complaint against Google with European Commission, ignores irony
So Microsoft doesn't like anticompetitive behavior, huh? Since when? Brad Smith, General Counsel for the Redmond rabblerousers, has posted a lengthy blog post outlining Microsoft's concerns with "a pattern of actions that Google has taken to entrench its dominance" in online search and ads, which he claims is detrimental to European consumers. Funnily enough, half the post is about Google's legal issues in the US, but we'll set that aside for now. What this boils down to is that Microsoft is finally taking the gloves off -- Google accused it of pushing other companies to do its dirty work -- and is now adding its name to the list of objectors to Mountain View's stranglehold on search in Europe. The European Commission is already taking a regulatory looksee at Google's tactics, so this isn't sparking off a new investigation, but it does add the glamor of two big names locking legal horns yet again. Hit the source link for Brad's exposition of Google's villainous wrongdoings.
Google to face formal EU antitrust investigation over unfair downranking of search competitors
Way back in February, the European Union announced its intention to look into allegations made against Google that the search leader wasn't ranking its competitors fairly in the results it delivered. Well, that fact-finding mission seems to have unearthed at least some hint of impropriety on Google's part, as it's now shed the "preliminary" label and has become a full-on antitrust probe. The original complaints came from EJustice.fr, Foundem.co.uk, and Microsoft's price comparison service Ciao, and they're still the basis of the investigation, though secondary issues, such as Google's conditions for advertisers and the way it tracks ad campaign data, will also be looked at. Let's not forget, however, that we're still dealing with allegations here, and it's going to be quite tricky to show any misdoing without delving into Google's famed algorithms and internal practices -- then again, maybe that's exactly what Mountain View's competitors are after. Update: Google has responded to the news on its Public Policy Blog.
Apple, Adobe, Google, Intel Intuit and Pixar: now free to cold call each other's employees
Attaboy, DoJ! Out of (almost) nowhere, the United States Department of Justice announced today that it was requiring six well-known technology outfits to stop entering into "anticompetitive employee solicitation agreements," and we're guessing you will have heard just a few of these names: Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit and Pixar. As the story goes, these six companies were all mixed up (but not all together, mind you) in agreements that forbid each other from cold calling employees from a rival firm in order to offer them a different job. According to the DoJ, those arrangements acted as a "significant form of competition to attract highly skilled employees," and it has now filed a civil antitrust complaint today along with a proposed settlement that, "if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit." We're also told that some of the agreements were put into place as early as 2005, and they were "formed and actively managed by senior executives of these companies." Yikes. Hit the source link for the full report, and feel free to call back that "Unknown" caller that keeps hitting you up on your Adobe line -- it's probably Pixar with a seven-figure offer.
Intel and FTC settle charges of anticompetitive conduct
It's been quite a stretch since the Federal Trade Commission first investigated and then ultimately sued Intel for alleged anticompetitive conduct, but the saga has now come to a close -- the two parties today announced a settlement of the charges. While that's no doubt better than some of the alternatives for Intel, it's hardly getting off easy -- the settlement prohibits Intel from paying computer makers to buy its chips exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others, and bans it from retaliating against other computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers. What's more, the settlement also requires Intel to modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, NVIDIA, and VIA to give those companies "more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement," and it requires that Intel maintain the PCI Express Bus interface "in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips" for at least six years, among some other stipulations. For Intel's part, it notes that it hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, and says that the move allows it "to put an end to the expense and distraction of the FTC litigation." Head on past the break for the full FTC press release.
South Korea slaps Qualcomm with massive fine for anticompetitive behavior
Qualcomm is no stranger to legal action, but at the end of the day, you've gotta hit 'em in the pocketbook if you want to get a company to change its ways. South Korea's antitrust authorities have decided that the wireless chipmaker is guilty of some nefarious deeds, imposing a 260 billion won fine -- that's 26 with ten zeroes after it -- or about $209 million, which is a new record for the agency. The company has a rather large operation in South Korea dealing with giants Samsung and LG, and that seems to be where the problem starts -- South Korea claims that they're offering better contracts to companies who deal exclusively with Qualcomm and shun its competitors, which the government is taking issue with. For its part, Qualcomm denies any wrongdoing and is vowing to "vigorously" defend itself as it works its way through the country's court system. Whatever, we just want cheaper phones, you know?
Intel fined record $1.45 billion in AMD antitrust case
The verdict is in and it's huge. As expected, the EU is fining Intel a record €1.06 billion or $1.45 billion (Billion!) dollars due to violations of antitrust rules in Europe. The record fine surpasses that of the €497 million fine originally levied against Microsoft. The EU ruled that Intel illegally used hidden rebates to squeeze rivals out of the marketplace for CPUs. In a statement issued by European Union Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes, the EC said, Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years.Intel was ordered to cease the illegal practices immediately and has three months from the notification of the decision to pay up. Of course, Intel will appeal and this will drag the litigation on for years as did Microsoft. Regardless, we'll bet that AMD, who raised the complaint against Intel back in 2000, will be celebrating come dawn in Sunnyvale.Update: Intel has issued a formal response to the ruling saying that the commission "is wrong and ignores the reality of a highly competitive microprocessor marketplace," and that its practices have caused, "absolutely zero harm to consumers." Oh, and it will <gasp> appeal the decision. Hurrah for corporate lawyers![Via Canada.com]
EU expected to rule against Intel in AMD antitrust case: Microsoft points, afraid to laugh
There are many tried and true methods for beating your competition in the free-market. Product innovation seems to work as does a proprietary ecosystem of peripherals, media, and services that keep customers locked-in for life. Or you can take Intel's approach: pay computer makers and retailers "to postpone or cancel" products containing CPUs from AMD, Intel's chief rival. That's the allegation it faces in the EU which, according to Reuters, has completed its antitrust investigation and is preparing to announce its decision on Wednesday. According to Reuters' sources, the European Commission will fine Intel for the violations discovered over the last eight years and order changes to Intel's business practices. It remains to be seen if the related fine exceeds the $655 million levied against Microsoft in 2004. But given the EU's distaste for anti-competitive practices, we're not expecting Intel to get off easy -- self-proclaimed "rock star" status or not.
Microsoft accused by EU of harming web browser competition, again
Gulp, here we go again. The European Commission is accusing Microsoft of unfairly dominating its competition by bundling Internet Explorer with its Windows OS. Yup, the very same argument heard in the US courts more than a decade ago after Netscape saw its 86% market share plummet in the face of a bundled IE. The commission, which already fined Microsoft $1.35 billion for anti-competitive practices in early 2008, has published the following preliminary view on the matter: "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice." Microsoft has 8 weeks to reply to the charge. It's worth noting that while Apple bundles its Safari browser with OS X, Apple commands a much, much smaller share of the operating system and web browser markets globally, particularly outside of the US. The EU's ruling does, perhaps, shed some light on why Apple's App Store is suddenly stocked with a variety of browsers for the hot selling iPhone, eh? Regardless, we have a feeling that the Norwegian cats behind Opera are feeling pretty smug right about now; Google too, as it kicks back licking its Chromium chops on the road to dominating "The Cloud."[Thanks, Marcus]
Orange's iPhone exclusive ruled illegal in France
After 13 months into a five-year exclusivity deal in France, the French competition agency has ruled the Apple and Orange (the mobile subsidiary of France Telecom) cartel illegal. Something that could have a knock-on effect throughout Europe. The agency criticized the Orange/Apple pact for having "grave and immediate" effect on the overall French mobile marketplace and thus, the French consumer, by introducing "a new flavor of rigidity in a sector that already lacks competition." The injunction, while temporary, is enough to allow other French carriers to distribute the iPhone 3G in time for the holidays. Shrug.[Thanks, Tieum and Nick]
HP threatening OEMs to fend off netbook invasion?
Get ready for some legal mastication. According to DigiTimes' manufacturing sources, HP -- the world's leading supplier of PCs -- is said to be demanding that its manufacturing partners "refuse outsourcing orders from ASUStek." HP apparently "sent out a notice" to its partners threatening to reduce its own outsourcing volume for anyone who violates the demand. It's worth noting that DigiTimes offers no evidence of HP's demand and its sources can be hit or miss in the industry. Having said that, DigiTimes has a very good track record related to leaks in the netbook industry. The allegation becomes all the more interesting on the heels of yesterday's Gartner report that shows HP slipping into second place behind Acer in Europe due to Acer's strong continental netbook sales. While worldwide PC shipments rose 15 percent from last year thanks to a strong showing by both ASUS and Acer in the netbook segment, HP's share has remained stagnant at 18.4% of the total market. Perhaps it's time to reinstate that internal spying program to prepare for some anti-competitive practices litigation, eh HP?Read -- HP threatening notebook OEMs Read -- HP drops to 2nd in Europe
