antitrust
Latest
New York attorney general files antitrust lawsuit against Intel
No matter how it tries, Intel just can't shake those pesky antitrust monkeys off its back: the attorney general of New York today filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against the chipmaker, saying it unfairly prevented AMD from competing under state and federal law. That's pretty much what the EU just fined Intel $1.45b for in May and exactly what AMD itself is suing Intel for in Delaware, so we're guessing things are a little busy for Chipzilla's lawyers right now -- and it's just going to get worse, as the smart money says this is all just a precursor to the Federal Trade Commission dropping the hammer sometime soon. Hey, maybe this would be a good time to for Intel to distract everyone with some USB 3.0 chipsets?
Hitachi and Toshiba subpoenaed in DOJ optical drive price fixing probe
We kinda knew that there couldn't be any antitrust smoke without the fire of market collusion, and sure enough, Sony Optiarc has been joined on the naughty step by Hitachi-LG Data Storage and Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. As the names should tell you, these are joint ventures involving some of the world's biggest electronics manufacturers, whose American optical drive divisions appear to be under suspicion of fixing prices. We'd have expected Hitachi and LG to wise up after paying out fines for LCD price fixing recently, but when you look at Hitachi's stock trading up after this news -- with traders confident any forthcoming fines will be too small to dent the company's bottom line -- maybe "by hook or by crook" is actually a viable business plan?
Sony Optiarc garners unwanted attention from DOJ for possible Blu-ray or DVD price fixing
In a filing with the Tokyo Stock Exchange this morning, Sony has revealed a request for information from the US Department of Justice regarding its optical drive production arm, Sony Optiarc. While the same filing indicates the Japanese giant's belief that this information gathering is part of a wider investigation into competition in the optical drive market, we've yet to hear of any other companies facing the same request. If you were feeling disgruntled with the pace of Blu-ray price drops, this might just be your moment of vindication... or it could be a storm in a teacup. There's really not enough information to tell either way right now, but if we know anything about the DOJ, it's that it loves shaking down naughty corporations. We'll keep a careful eye on this as it develops.
Amazon, Microsoft and Yahoo unite against Google Books
Microsoft, its new pet dog Yahoo, and Amazon have decided to join together in the soon to be formed Open Book Alliance. You might expect this to be a revolutionary new collaborative effort at delivering the written word in a way that makes Google Books pale into insignificance, but you would, of course, be wrong. Far from trying to compete with Google, The OBA is set to act as the collective mouthpiece for all those opposed to Google's recent $125 million settlement deal with book publishers and authors. With the US Department of Justice already investigating antitrust concerns relating to the case, the other big dogs just couldn't restrain themselves from coming together for a united whinge. Should the settlement be cleared, it will permit Google non-exclusive rights to orphan works (those without an established writer) and will give it a 30 per cent cut of books sold via Google Books, both things that authors have agreed to. So what's there to moan about, fellas -- we all trust Google to do the right thing, right?
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.
Microsoft relents to European Commission, will give users browser freedom in Windows 7
It looks like Redmond is backing slowly away from its previous IE-or-else stance on Windows 7 for European markets. According to an article just published, the OS giant has apparently caved to pressure from the European Commission over "monopoly abuse" (practices which essentially force users into Internet Explorer as their main browser). The last we'd heard on this story, the company was considering shipping the new operating system without a browser altogether, but it looks like those plans have changed. Microsoft has relented and will now offer consumers a "ballot screen" on first boot, allowing purchasers to make their own (we're hoping informed) decision about which window into the web they'll be looking through. Additionally, while Windows 7 will still include an install of IE, users will have the option to disable it, and computer-makers will also be allowed to pre-load any browser they see fit for their systems. We're glad that Microsoft is taking the inclusive approach here, though there are lots of good arguments against the EC's actions. We don't see Apple getting the same heat for Safari, though Apple doesn't currently hold the lion's share of the market. At the end of the day, we're personally just happy to not be using IE -- no matter how you slice it.
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.
WaPo: DOJ preparing antitrust probe for Apple, among others
Apple, Google, Yahoo! and Genentech are subjects of a fresh antitrust investigation surrounding hiring and recruiting practices among companies in the tech industry, according to Washington Post staff writer Cecilia Kang. "By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly," antitrust experts said in the article. Hiring and recruiting can sometimes be a touchy affair, as Apple found out late last year when trying to hire Mark Papermaster. The investigation may suggest some kind of written agreement among large tech firms to not hire away each other's top talent. According to the New York Times, Justice has only requested documents for the ongoing investigation. Neither the Justice Department nor any of the companies mentioned in the story had any comment. This comes in addition to another Justice investigation into ties between the boards of directors of Apple and Google, and whether or not having Google CEO Eric Schmidt on both (and Genentech CEO Arthur Levinson on all three) constitutes antitrust violations. Some consider Apple and Google to be competitors in certain areas such as phone handsets. The Obama administration is stepping up efforts to investigate anti-competitive activity among high-tech companies, and is already investigating Google's deal with book authors to republish their work via Google Books. [Via AppleInsider]
AMD 'breaks free', creates site dedicated to Intel's antitrust ruling
We knew AMD would be celebrating its victory over Intel and its record $1.45 billion fine doled out by EU over violation of antitrust rules, but we figured that just meant a very fancy cake and maybe a trip to the local zoo. Nay, we were mistaken, as the chip maker has gone all out in creating an entire website dedicated to its victory. "AMD Break Free" is pretty amazing in its thoroughness, and you'll find all kinds of court documents, press releases, explanations of antitrust laws, and even a news feed to follow further developments. Of course, Intel's appeal is a sure sign this case will be drag on for a very long time, possibly even become overturned, and none of this apparent gloating is gonna help one bit in getting the company back into the top ten rankings for chip manufacturers. [Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
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.
Apple / Google relationship being investigated for antitrust violations
The relationship between Apple and Google has always been pretty cozy -- Mac OS X and the iPhone tie into a variety of Google services, Google's developed rule-breaking iPhone apps, we've heard endless whispers of Apple meddling in the development of the G1, and on and on. In fact, the relationship between the two companies is so tight they actually share board members: Google CEO Eric Schmidt and former Genentech CEO Arthur Levinson take meetings in both Cupertino and Mountain View. That's apparently raised some hackles at the Federal Trade Commission, which has reportedly informed both companies they're being investigated for violating a rarely-enforced section of the Clayton Antitrust Act prohibiting "interlocking directorates" when it reduces competition. That sounds like someone at the FTC just noticed that Apple makes the iPhone and Google's responsible for Android, but nothing's set in stone yet -- and we've got a feeling Android's open-source codebase could throw a monkey wrench into an already-complex legal analysis. We'll obviously be tracking this one closely, keep an eye out.
VIZIO files antitrust and unfair competition lawsuit against Funai
Aw, snap! Just months after Funai took the reins from Philips in North America, along comes a lawsuit for its lawyers to deal with. VIZIO, still feeling proud after its all-business Super Bowl ad, has thrown a potent antitrust and unfair competition lawsuit in Funai's direction. The outfit alleges that Funai, "acting alone and in concert with others, unlawfully restrained trade and monopolized the market for the licensing of technology used to interpret and retrieve information from a digital television broadcast signal, as well as the market for digital television sets and receivers." Specifically, VIZIO seems perturbed that Funai inappropriately acquired the rights to one single US patent, and ever since it has "unfairly discriminated against VIZIO in the licensing and enforcement" of said patent to the "detriment of trade and commerce." There's no mention of how many bills VIZIO thinks will fix the problem, but Funai better not try filling stacks of hundies with Washingtons in between.[Image courtesy of TooMuchNick / WireImage]
Psystar wins a battle, legal war just getting started
Previously in the Apple-Psystar legal battle, the clone maker amended its countersuit to charge that Apple was unfairly leveraging its copyright by binding Mac OS X to Mac hardware. On Friday, the federal judge assigned to the case ruled that the amendment will be heard by the court, a small victory for Psystar. It's something of a reversal for the company, since they had federal antitrust allegations thrown out in November. Similarly, Psystar's assertion that Apple is in violation of California's antitrust laws was thrown out Friday as well. Judge William Alsup said, "Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple's claims against it -- for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop." This isn't to say that the judge necessarily agrees with Psystar's point, but just that it's legally reasonable enough to be argued in court. Apple has also not yet revealed its 10 "John Doe" defendants: alleged conspirators who worked on Psystar's technique for loading Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. The case will decide whether or not Apple can disallow other hardware makers -- including Psystar -- from including Mac OS X on computers shipped to end users. Last week, a company in Germany claimed that Mac OS X's End User License Agreement didn't apply to them, and is selling Mac clones to customers. The case is scheduled to go to trial on November 9. [Via Macworld.]
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]
Psystar drops antitrust argument against Apple, throws copyright abuse at the wall
Oh, Psystar. Fresh from the court's smackdown of its antitrust claims against Apple, the wannabe Mac cloner has amended its lawsuit to ditch that argument and instead allege that Steve-o is committing the sin of copyright abuse by not letting it sell OS X compatible machines. Yes, copyright abuse. The little-known doctrine is generally used by by those being sued for copyright infringement as a defense, and Psystar's now questionably hotshot legal team is essentially throwing a Hail Mary by arguing that Apple's EULA is anticompetitive because it relies on the power of copyright law to restrict the use of OS X to Apple's machines. If you're thinking to yourself, "But imposing conditions on a licensee is exactly the sort of power granted to a copyright owner!" congratulations -- you have incredibly boring thoughts. You're also exactly correct -- we don't see this argument getting any farther than the antitrust one did. Honestly, at this point we're pretty certain Psystar is hurting the OSx86 movement way more than it's helping -- Apple's started making noise like it's coming after the hackers who make it possible, and that's the last thing we want to have happen. Maybe stop tickling the dragon, guys?P.S.- The PDF of the new counterclaim is an entertaining read -- the law students out there might want to read it as reassurance they'll eventually be paid the big bucks to spew out some deep crazy.
With new claims, Psystar tries another angle
You have to admire Psystar's tenacity. Since Judge William Alsup's decision to disallow federal antitrust claims against Apple in Psystar's countersuit, Psystar is amending its countersuit, alleging the misuse of copyright based on different antitrust claims. It boggles the mind. Apple is already suing Psystar, of course, claiming that they are violating Mac OS X's End User License Agreement (EULA). Psystar, in its new set of counterclaims, says that Apple is improperly extending the scope of copyright law to include its argument that Psystar broke the EULA. Psystar claims that -- while admitting that it can't make arguments based on federal antitrust law -- Apple has "leveraged" the power granted them by the Copyright Act and extended it to lock in users post-sale. This, Psystar says, is unlawfully monopolistic, and makes Apple's copyrights unenforceable. Psystar is also seeking to prove that Apple's behavior is illegal under California's unfair competition statute. The judge will decide in January if the new claims can be argued in court. [Via Ars Technica.]
Apple, Psystar strike a deal
CNET and The Mac Observer noted a legal filing on Friday that suggested Apple and Psystar were looking to bypass the normal lawsuit process and enter a phase of private arbitration and mediation. The filing notes that Apple and Psystar will participate in the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, a way to keep legal costs down -- and the outcome private. For famously secretive Apple, this agreement seems right up their alley. The agreement means the two companies will enter non-binding arbitration, present their case to a neutral party, and work out a deal through mediation. This all probably comes down to one thing: cash money. Psystar has nowhere near the cash reserves that Apple has, so this less-expensive option is attractive to them. It's attractive to Apple because if they lose, the decision is kept under wraps. As CNET's Tom Krazit notes, if Apple is guilty of Psystar's antitrust accusations, it could hurt their other cases where they're accused of the same thing. Of course, we'll know for certain the outcome simply by seeing if Psystar continues to sell their computers (or not) after January 31, when the ADR sessions wrap up. [Via AppleInsider.] Update: According to Psystar's attorneys, Apple and Psystar were ordered into the mediation by the court. According to several of our commenters, ADR is a common practice. Soulbarn says: "It is practically mandatory. It would be a surprise if it didn't happen, no matter who the case involved, big or small, famous or not famous, precedent-setting or non-precedent setting. It is part of the normal legal process." Thanks, everyone!
Apple asks for lawsuit dismissal with 'prejudice'
Apple is asking the judge presiding over the company's lawsuit against Psystar to dismiss the cloner's antitrust lawsuit "with prejudice." IGM notes that a motion to dismiss is a very normal part of the lawsuit process. Asking to dismiss "with prejudice" is a little more severe, but not necessarily uncommon, and if the motion is granted it would make it impossible for Psystar to re-file the case in the future. "Defendant Psystar Corporation is knowingly infringing Apple's copyrights and trademarks, and inducing others to do the same. ... In an obvious attempt to divert attention from its unlawful actions, Psystar asserts deeply flawed antitrust counterclaims designed to have this Court force Apple to license its software to Psystar, a direct competitor. The Court should reject Psystar's efforts to excuse its copyright infringement, and dismiss these Counterclaims with prejudice," Apple's lawyers wrote in a court filing September 30. The next hearing in the trial is schedule for November 6, when judge William Alsup will hear the motion for dismissal. [Via ZDNet and MacsimumNews.]
EU slaps Intel with three more antitrust charges
Man, the EU is really not too fond of Intel, is it? Adding to all the other antitrust charges filed against the chipmaker, the friendly grey suits at the European Commission have slapped on an additional three: paying a "leading European retailer" not stock AMD products, giving incentives to PC makers to switch to Intel chips, and paying an unspecified company to delay the launch of an AMD-based product. For its part, Intel is reacting like it always does when the Europeans get prickly: by steadfastly denying everything. Intel has eight weeks to file a formal response, but as with all of these cases, we wouldn't expect a resolution any time soon.[Thanks, Ricky]
