anti-trust
Latest
Apple and Google made informal deal to not pilfer each other's employees?
While not official, sources close to the matter have told TechCrunch that Google and Apple had an informal agreement not to poach each other's employees. Apparently, Google's recruitment division knew and adhered to not actively seeking Apple employees to hire them away, and vice-versa with Apple's recruiters. That's not to say someone who voluntarily submitted a resume would be turned away, but as one published email notes, cold calls were against policy. An agreement to not poach each other's workers, even if not codified, is part of the reason the government has launched antitrust investigations, as it can be considered an obstruction to healthy market competition. It's believed this deal came about as a byproduct of Google CEO Eric Schmidt also being an Apple board member at the time. Of course, with Schmidt finally excusing himself from all portions of Apple's board meetings, there's a chance that hiring agreement walked away with him, and really, we wouldn't be surprised if the federal inquiry also decided to leave the dinner table at this point.
Department of Justice casually looking into abuses of power by big carriers?
Word on the street has it that the US Department of Justice has started informally looking into whether top carriers have gotten all antitrust-y on us, specifically investigating hardware exclusives and restrictions on the services third parties can offer on the network (open access, anyone?). The carriers potentially being called into question here -- most likely Verizon and AT&T, seeing how they're the largest by a long shot and have both made recent acquisitions to beef up their footprints and positions -- say that they've received no notices of investigation, so if this is really happening, it's still in the earliest stages. Beefs over handset locking and exclusivity are nothing new and have come from governments and competitors alike -- but considering the price flexibility they ultimately give carriers on the front end, they've still got a place in the hearts and minds of consumers who put a premium on (perceived) value and instant gratification. It remains to be seen what'll happen to pricing when you can't promise your carrier you won't run off with its subsidized gear the next day, but we can't imagine it'll be good.
LGJ: The Anti-Trust Game
Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq ("LGJ"), a column on legal issues as they relate to video games: I've mentioned before that both in the latter years of the previous administration and under the new administration, certain kinds of enforcement actions were increasing in number. Past commentaries in LGJ have focused on trade, but another one of those areas is anti-trust. What got my attention in this regard was a conversation I had the other day with a partner in the firm who has dealt with a number of anti-trust issues. We were discussing the game industry, and he asked what the price range was on games these days. My response was a range, with the caveat that for pretty much all new PS3 and Xbox 360 games, the price was $60. His thought was that had to be on someone's radar screen to investigate, even if there's no actual anti-trust violation going on.Given the investigative climate, I would tend to agree, though based on what I know in the industry, I don't think there's any actual collusion going on. Instead, we likely have a case of 'conscious parallelism,' which isn't illegal per se, though a government official looking for their "big break" might just take on this case hoping to see a shift in the law from the higher courts. I'm getting well ahead of myself, though, since a better background in anti-trust needs to be set out before getting into the specifics.
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]
Microsoft concedes, complies with EU antitrust ruling
After losing the appeal and suffering daily penalty payments for years, Microsoft has finally conceded to the European commission. This after withdrawing its appeal in the South Korea antitrust case last week. The "substantial changes" to Microsoft's behavior can be boiled down as follows: Rival software developers (including open-source) can now access and use Microsoft interoperability information Royalties for this information will be reduced to a one-off payment of €10,000 / $14,000 Royalties for a world-wide license to use Microsoft's product and patents will be reduced from 5.95% to just 0.4% While Microsoft can technically still appeal the September ruling on the original 2004 decision, it certainly looks like this dog has been beaten into obedient, doe-eyed submission.
States want court oversight of Microsoft for another five years
Even with its highly visible attempts to clean up its image, "embrace" open standards and play "nice" with the Linux kids, Microsoft is still in the dog house as far as a California-led coalition of states is concerned. They want to extend court oversight of Microsoft, which is currently set to expire this November, for another five years, to make sure the software giant continues to comply with the anti-trust settlement reached back in 2002. Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia are all in on the action, no word yet on how it'll all play out.
Microsoft calls Google out on Windows search integration claim
As the two giants edge closer onto each of their respective core markets, the tension gets more pronounced: just last week Google pointed to the integration of search into Windows Vista, claiming to the Dept. of Justice that it discourages people from using other solutions (like Google's Desktop Search) and violates the company's agreement with the Government. This week, Steve Ballmer called the complaint "baseless," and said that the company is in complete compliance with the agreements it has with the U.S. Government. In any case, Microsoft is fighting a losing battle, with Google able to use the DOJ as a router for its claims, and Microsoft then forced to defend itself on two fronts. Maybe it might be a good time for Microsoft to consider a policy of opening its platforms a little bit: it's not like the opponent (this time around) is going to go away anytime soon.
NVIDIA faces barrage of civil lawsuits
Those price fixing allegations that AMD and NVIDIA were facing late last year may have vanished from the forefront of your memory, but you can rest assured that the legal teams connected to the two are still workin' overtime to clean things up. Apparently, NVIDIA has been slapped with as many as 51 civil complaints over "price fixing and anti-competitive agreements, among other things," and on its March 16th filing with the SEC, the firm states that "42 civil complaints as of March 14 were filed against it on the same allegations." Notably, the outfit did state that the "lawsuits are putative class-actions," and unsurprisingly felt that they were all lacking merit and would be fought vigorously. Tsk, Tsk.[Via Gearlog]
AMD and ATI get their union blessed by the suits
Those two little chip-making lovebirds just passed the last major regulatory hurdles in the US, Canada and Germany on their way to becoming one under the AMD roof. Yesterday marked the end of the waiting period required under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, and anti-trust stuff went off without a hitch in Canada and Germany as well. Now all AMD and ATI are waiting on is for ATI's shareholder meeting on October 13th to give a final go-ahead, along with a few other minor court and regulatory approvals. The transaction is expected to be completed during ATI's first fiscal quarter of 2007, which ends November 30, 2006. Most reports are looking like ATI will hold onto its brand name for its own product line, and that some of the first order of business will be prepping integrated graphics chips to put AMD on better footing in the budget PC and compact laptop fields.[Via Ars Technica]
EU investigating HD DVD, Blu-ray licensing terms
Both high definition optical disc formats have already seen their share of setbacks in the form of delays and hardware problems, and now they may be facing some nasty anti-trust allegations pending the results of a recently-launched EU probe. Having already flexed its authoritative muscle against Microsoft, the European Commission has now moved on to investigating the terms that the major backers of Blu-ray and HD DVD are exerting upon their respective licensees. Since the investigation is still "unofficial" at this point, the Commission refused to specify the particular companies being probed, although Sony publicly confirmed that it has received one of the letters in question and that it's cooperating with regulators. If these same regulators decide that nothing fishy is going on, then the matter will be dropped; but if they're displeased with the responses they get, a full anti-trust probe is likely. Best case scenario: only one of the camps ends up being subjected to further scrutiny, leaving the other as clear-cut victor in the format war and saving us all the hassle of choosing sides.
