Archive for the ‘Market News (and AT Implications)’ Category
Net neutrality and Antitrust
The European Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, a certain Neelie Kroes, is now in charge of dealing with European policy with regards to net neutrality. This hot issue, which is now her current priority (for her latest speeches on this subject see here and here), is the subject matter of a Commission´s Report she presented to the European Parliament on April 19th.
Net neutrality activists have heavily criticized the Report alleging that it endorses a “wait and see” approach in spite of the identification of alleged instances of blocking or throttling of certain types of traffic. The Report states that the Commission and BEREC are currently investigating those alleged practices and that “[i]n this regard, the Commission reserves its right to assess under Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU any behaviour related to traffic management that may restrict or distort competition“. One should however note that the Report doesn´t exclude the possibility that an ad hoc regulatory framework might be adopted.
On the other side of the Atlantic the debate on the interface between antitrust and regulation on this same area is also a “trending topic”. Speaking last Thursday before a Subcommittee of the US Congress, the President of the US Federal Communications Commission expressed his views on this debate stating that:
“while critically important, antitrust laws alone would not adequately preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet or provide enough certainty and confidence to drive investment in our innovation future.
(…) antitrust enforcement is expensive to pursue, takes a long time, and kicks in only after damage is done. Especially for start-ups in a fast-moving area like the Internet, that’s not a practical solution”.
He also replied to the Republican´s party proposal to enact specific antitrust laws to regulate internet neutrality:
“Some have suggested that Congress adopt new antitrust laws addressing Internet openness. But that too would be a problematic approach, ill-suited to the fast-changing nature of Internet technology. As the Supreme Court has pointed out, while statutes are hard to change in light of new developments in network technology or markets, expert administrative agencies have flexible processes for dealing with the unexpected and are, accordingly, better suited for handling this particular issue”. (See here for his complete statement).
At first sight, my -rather simple- take is that if there really were a need for intervention (not having devoted time to this issue I wouldn´t dare to express an opinion on this point) antitrust and regulation could play together and should be seen as complements rather than as substitutes (although that´s certainly much easier to say in the EU in light of case law such as Deutsche Telekom than in the EU, where the Supreme Court´s Decision in Trinko enormously complicates antitrust challenges to practices already subject to regulation on the part of the FCC).
This could be an interesting topic a discussion and we haven´t paid much attention to it here. We´d be glad to open the floor to any of our readers who might have some more developed thoughts on it. Anyone?
We´re back. And a few things happened while we were away
We´re back on track. Since, strangely enough, the world didn´t stop turning in our absence, there have been a number of interesting developments worth noting. Some of them will be the object of specific posts in the coming days, but, for the moment, here´s a choice of three: one from the EU, one from the US, and one from a third jurisdiction (Mexico), which are related to matters that have recently been/will soon be discussed on this blog:
Europe: Last Tuesday Commissioner Almunia delivered a speech at the GCLC´s Fifth Evening Policy Talk (by the way, the director of the host institution, who happens to be my co-blogger, Monsieur Petit, was absent; how rude is that?? 😉
Commissioner Almunia spoke about the “resilience and adaptability” of the competitition rules; he highlighted the four commitment decisions adopted by the Commission in the energy sector, pointed out that competition enforcement can achieve objectives other than the efficiency of markets (resorting to the example of facilitating generic entry into pharma markets), and insisted on the necessary complementarity of regulation and competition (with his eyes set on financial markets).
In addition, and very interestingly, Mr. Almunia announced plans to aim for a “better targetting” of State aid control, noting that the Commission´s services currently have too much on their plate. It will be most interesting to see the practicalities of how the Commission intends to “refocus” its resources on the State aid field. In the coming days one of the greatest experts on State aid matters will express his views on these plans on Chillin´Competition.
United States: More Google News (and this time we’re far from being the first ones commenting on them…). On earlier posts we referred to the controversy surrounding the Google/ ITA software deal. Some days ago the parties entered into a consent decree which imposes a set of detailed “regulatory” conditions upon Google’s future operation of ITA that would resolve all of the DOJ’s competitive concerns. Those concerns essentially related to the possibility of other flight search companies being foreclosed from access to QPX (ITA’s airfare pricing and shopping software). A press release from the DOJ briefly describes the conditions imposed by the consent decree in the following terms:
Under the proposed settlement, Google will be required to continue to license ITA’s QPX software to airfare websites on commercially reasonable terms. QPX conducts searches for air travel fares, schedules and availability. Google will also be required to continue to fund research and development of that product at least at similar levels to what ITA has invested in recent years. Google will also be required to further develop and offer ITA’s next generation InstaSearch product to travel websites, which will provide near instantaneous results to certain types of flexible airfare search queries. InstaSearch is currently not commercially available, but is in development by ITA.
To prevent abuse of commercially sensitive information, Google will be required to implement firewall restrictions within the company that prevent unauthorized use of competitively sensitive information and data gathered from ITA’s customers. The proposed settlement delineates when and for what purpose that data may be used by Google. Google is also prohibited from entering into agreements with airlines that would inappropriately restrict the airlines’ right to share seat and booking class information with Google’s competitors. Finally, the proposed settlement provides for a formal reporting mechanism for complainants if Google acts in an unfair manner.
(For a more detailed explanation on these conditions read the Proposed Final Judgment. Other documentation related to the case can be found here).
The consent decree is subject to the US District Court for the District of Columbia’s approval, and must now go through a 60 day comment period. As all Google-related stuff, the consent decree has instantly spurred different sorts of enthusiastic reactions. Google is excited because the deal is now “cleared for take off”, and rivals are happy too because one of the conditions imposed by the consent decree effectively creates a mechanism for the continued scrutiny of a narrow part of Google’s activities. Any reactions from our readers?
International antitrust: The impact of competition law is becoming increasingly more noticeable in Latin America. The Mexican Federal Competition Commission (COFECO) imposed a record MXN12 billion (USD 1 billion= 865 million euros) penalty on Telcel (a subsidiary of America Movil, owned by Carlos Slim). The sanction was announced some days ago, but it was only yesterday that COFECO gave details about its decision, explaining that Telcel had charged interconnection fees to terminate calls on the Telcel network that were above the implied charges for calls made within its own network, or even above the final charges Telcel makes to its own customers. The fact that Telcel was a repeat offender motivated the levying of the maximum possible sanction (i.e. 10% of Telcel´s turnover in the preceeding year). We don´t have much more info on this, but since I´ve been asked to write about it in the Mexican press, it´s quite likely that we´ll discuss the case more in depth in the near future.
Welcome back!
Microsoft v. Google – Clash of the Titans
On Behalf of the Antitrust Community, A Big Thank You – Antitrust law professors should be grateful to Microsoft (hereafter, “MSFT”). As a repeat offender of the competition laws, MSFT has provided scholars with loads of research and educational material for the past 20 years. Now, since yesterday, MFST is trying to turn the tables. In its complaint against Google, MSFT seeks to endorse the role of the victim of anticompetitive conduct. Food for thought in upcoming lectures, articles, and so on.
My Initial Reaction, and the Timing of MSFT’s Complaint – I have on several occasions criticized the Commission’s MSFT decisions (and some might have thought that I had a tiny bias for the Redmond giant). Given that I try to be am consistent with myself – and that I do not, or no longer, work in a law-firm advising one of those firms – I’ll be blunt: from a legal perspective, yesterday’s complaint against Google looks fragile. Its chief, and maybe sole merit is to throw some mud at Google in the press, at a moment when (i) Google has been reported to be close to a settlement with the Commission; and (ii) Google has suffered a major setback last week, when its settlement with US publishers and authors was annulled by a NY judge.
The Essential Facility Allegations – For this first post on the MSFT complaint, let’s focus on two of the new allegations described in MSFT’s General Counsel’s post. The first couple of allegations involve a conventional refusal to supply case, with input foreclosure effects. Google is a vertically integrated operator with upstream activities (media content) and downstream interests (search, mobile phones, etc.). The complaint focuses on the media content which Google provides through Youtube. Through a range of technical measures (e.g., refusal to disclose the site map of Youtube which prevents indexing), Google would allegedly restrict rival search engines and mobile phones’ access to Youtube content (e.g. indexing of Youtube links on Bing would not be satisfactory). Since Youtube content is an essential input for rival firms downstream, Google’s conduct would lead to foreclosure effects. This scenario has been described in the December 2010 Opinion of the French Competition Council at §313.
Smartphones and Search Engines are Multifunctional Products – I have my doubts on those allegations. Remember: three cumulative conditions must in principle be met to prove an unlawful refusal to deal under Article 102 TFEU. The first of them involves proving that the input is “indispensable” for rival firms to operate in the downstream market. On cursory examination, this condition is unlikely to be met in the present case. This is because Youtube content represents (i) only a tiny share of what end-users look for on the web; and (ii) one of the very many parameters which buyers consider when they purchase smartphones. Rival search engines/phone manufacturers foreclosed from access to Youtube may still compete with Google out of search efficiency on other types of data (news, blogs, whatever). Similarly, rival smartphone manufacturers may still compete with Google’s Android phones on other types of apps, on genuine technical performance (screen, battery, etc.), and so on. Search engines/smartphones are multifunctional products. As such, they can operate viably around the content function – as premium as it may be – provided by Youtube.
Replicability? – In addition, the indispensability condition is not met where the firm requesting access can replicate the alleged essential facility, or start its own production of the alleged essential input (e.g, through investments or upwards vertical integration, for instance). Here again, one should not forget that the financial costs required to create a database similar to Youtube are not that significant. This is because content is posted primarily by users, and those do not have to pay for this. The crux of the matter for a new entrant thus lies in attracting users to the media platform and incentivizing them to upload their content. And to do this, the only thing needed is an ergonomic platform and, first and foremost a nice and original idea. Back in the day, Youtube had it, Microsoft not. Tough luck.
Magnitude of the Alleged Unlawful Conduct – To prove an abuse, one must also establish that the conduct has anticompetitive foreclosure effects. On this, it must be stressed that Youtube belongs to the list of websites which most workers cannot visit during day-time. Hence, access to Youtube content is irrelevant to many of the Internet searches made across the world during working hours. Rival search engines that do not index any Youtube content can thus perfectly provide adequate search functionalities to worker, and have thus a lot of space to expand on the market. If there’s a foreclosure effect, it is likely to be limited to a fraction of the searches made on a daily basis.
Caveat – Of course, all of this remains subject to further discussion, but those are a few preliminary ideas that sprung to mind yesterday in reading the press release. I will try to post more on the other allegations in upcoming weeks.
A Wish – To conclude, let’s just pray that MSFT stays in business for the next years. Should MSFT be forced off the market through anticompetitive tactics, many antitrust scholars would face dramatic input foreclosure issues.
A Weird Coincidence – The MSFT complaint comes timely. A day after I published with my assistant a paper entitled “Back to Microsoft I and II – The Art of Secret Magic”. See here for a link to the paper (http://jeclap.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/lpq080?
ijkey=dJNPpOPfKQ5FcGd&keytype=ref)
Press Coverage – I am quoted in a Bloomberg report yesterday. See here.
Google Books Settlement Rejected
Some of you will recall that roughly a year ago I wrote a post on the Google Books settlement (“Google Books Settlement: It´s the search market stupid!”) in which I argued that the only competitive problem, if any, posed by the amended settlement related to the search market. [In that post we also directed you to the transcript and a very good summary of the fairness hearing (Part I ; Part II) which may allow you to better understand all subsequent developments].
Yesterday, Judge Chin, of the Southern District of New York, issued an opinion concluding that the Amended Google Books Settlement (“ASA”) is not fair, adequate or reasonable, precisely because it would further entrench Google´s maket power in the online search market. The Opinion is available here.
Judge Chin acknowledges that Google´s plan of creating a universal digital library would bring about great benefits for many, but concludes that the ASA “would simply go to far”. In his view, “it would permit the class action to implement a forward-looking business arrangement that would grant Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without permission of the copyright owners. Indeed, the ASA would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case“.
From a reading of the opinion it is obvious that (i) Judge Chin has conferred significant relevance to the number and vociferousness of the objections presented to him, and has mainly based his Opinion upon them; and (ii) the decision is to a great extent motivated by concerns which are not directly antitrust-related, such as those over the adequacy of class representation (e.g. foreign authors), involuntary expropriation of copyrights by virtue of the “opt-out” mechanism, or the alleged improper use of the settlement of a class action to regulate a aspects of a “forward looking” business arrangement which had not been raised before the Court.
With regards to the antitrust concerns posed by the ASA, and after referring to the submissions made by several parties, Chin concludes that “Google´s ability to deny competitors the ability to search orphan books would further entrench Google´s market power in the online search market”.
Most, if not all, of the concerns outlined in the opinion would be addressed “simply” by switching from an opt-out to an opt-in model, although that would surely be detrimental to the scale and quality of the service provided and could perhaps even affect the viability of the project. Balancing all the interests at stake is certainly a daunting challenge.
There are no easy answers to the many fascinating issues that arise in connection with this case. In fact, its interest lies precisely on the fact that those issues can only be addresses by adopting a defined stance with regards to the core, almost ideological, debates underlying our discipline (amongst others, and to put a couple of them in their most basic terms: would we rather have a natural or de facto monopolist providing a service that no one else can provide, or would we rather prefer a counterfactual where we renounce to have that service for the sake of not having a monopolist controlling it? What room is there for fairness concerns in antitrust analysis?).
These are particularly complicated days at work, but you can expect a more detailed commentary of Judge Chin’s Opinion from us once things clear up a bit.
————————–
PS. And speaking of Google, as announced here some days ago, on Friday I will be presenting a discussion on antitrust issues in cloud computing featuring Tero Louko (Google) and Carel Maske (Microsoft).
Other panels will feature Jennifer Vasta (Qualcomm), Thomas Kramler (European Commission), Luis Ortiz Blanco (Garrigues), Álvaro Ramos (Cisco), Miguel Rato (Shearman&Sterling), Pablo Hernández (SGAE) and Daniel Escoda (Telefónica).
Conflicting views on the Google/ITA Software deal
Last week I mentioned here the White Paper issued by the American Antitrust Institute on Google´s proposed acquisition of ITA Software. As you will recall, the AAI concluded that the deal would give rise to competitive concerns that made antitrust intervention necessary. As practically all Google-related debates, this one is fast getting huge, and extremely interesting.
On the one hand, the anti-Google “Fair Search” coalition has created a web page stating all the reasons why the deal would harm consumers in every conceivable way. You may or may not agree with it, but one must admit that they´re doing a pretty good job in speading their message around (this is a consequence of what I meant when I said here that Google has tough and very powerful competitors, who have the incentives and the means to present a fierce battle in as many fronts as possible).
We´ve given you the link to the AAI´s White Paper and to the Fair Search web page, both of which favor close scrutiny of this transaction. The picture would not be complete if we didn´t direct you to some of the arguments explaining why the acquisition of ITA by Google would actually be procompetitive. Daniel Crane, a Professor at Michigan Law School, has just written a guest post on the blog Techcrunch.com in which he does that exactly; he also sends a very clear message: “Let´s calm down on the Google-ITA deal” (thanks go to George Pedakakis for pointing us to it).
Crane´s main point is that “Google’s competitors naturally fear Google’s emergence as a formidable rival in travel search, but that is hardly a reason to block the transaction. Indeed, it’s a reason to approve the deal. The most likely scenario is that Google’s acquisition of ITA would allow Google a quick and efficient entry point into travel search that would expand consumer options and increase rather than decrease competition“. His post also responds to the main allegations put forward by those opposing the deal.
Now that you´ve a complete picture of the main positions in this debate we´d be happy to know about any thoughts our readers may have on this matter. Anyone?
Unrelated: We are also reporting more and important moves in the Brussels legal market: a bunch of great associates have also left Howrey to join Shearman&Sterling. Amongst them are some of the brightest young lawyers around (some of whom are also very good friends of ours), such as Mark English, Elvira Aliende, Louise Rabeux, or Marixenia Davilla.
And a chillin´leak: Julian Joshua is apparently headed to Steptoe & Johnson
It´s shocking to see how what until very recently was a top-notch practice at Howrey´s has disintegrated so quickly. Looking at the positive side: there will be more empty tables at L´arte di, which is were we constantly ran into each other at lunchtime..
Google News
Things are developing on the Google front, and for some reason the timing of the most significant developments is practically coincidental:
The complainants in the EU investigation on Google are as active as we had forecasted. A supplementary complaint has just been lodged before the European Commission by the French company 1plusV, which controls ejustice.fr, one of the original complainants. More on the content of the complaint here.
Almost in parallel, the Texas Attorney General disclosed on Tuesday some details on the information that it requested from Google a year ago concerning the operation of its search algorithm (see here ).
The new complaint and those revelations come at at moment of growing rumors on the likelihood of an early settlement. Apparently there have been a number of preliminary talks (including a meeting between Eric Schmidt and Commissioner Almunia), although the Commission has made clear that the investigation is ongoing. An offer of commitments on the part of Google seems to be the most sensible solution from Google´s standpoint it it wants to avoid entering into a never-ending legal battle with the Commission. In fact, Google´s CEO has been reported to be thinking along these lines (see here). As we´ve said before, I very much doubt that complainants and other of Google´s competitors would be satisfied; I bet that the case will be taken to Luxembourg no matter what, but given the Commission´s litigation record in art. 102 cases (and ultimately the Alrosa litigation) there´s no doubt Google would rather have the institution on its side.
Unrelated to the EU investigation, but also of interest is the fact that the American Antitrust Institute has published a white paper arguing that the DOJ should seriously consider challenging Google´s acquisition of ITA Software. It strikes me that the AAI, whose members should probably have very divergent views, has taken such a defined institutional position on this particular deal, but the paper makes an interesting read anyhow.
PS. Once again, all the info above has been found through Google News.
Apple´s offer to publishers & an overstatement on lawyers´(un)happiness
Today we´d like to point you to a couple of short and interesting pieces on which we would appreciate hearing your views:
As some of you may know, Apple recently announced that it will allow newspapapers, magazines and other publications to sell digital subscriptions of to iPhone, iPad and iTouch users (if you don´t, see here). An interesting post published yesterday on The Wall Street Journal Law Blog (see here) has highlighted the potential antitrust-related risks incurred by Apple with regards to some of the terms of its offer. One of the central issues essentially boils down to defining the relevant market affected by Apple´s offer: is there a relevant market for consumer tablet computers? A wider market for digital and print media outlets? Any opinions? And even case Apple were found dominant in a nascent market, should that warrant antitrust intervention?
A second interesting, and certainly controversial piece of reading, is this one. It´s an article written some years ago in The Sunday Times concerning lawyers´ dissatisfaction with their work. I have stated here some of my views on this topic, and I´ve even ventured some criticism on how things are often done (see here and here). However, I view this article as overstepping the mark and as a consequence it ends up depicting “City” lawyers -and, in a sense, the whole profession- in a way that makes lawyers appear as despicable inhuman beings. There are a number of cheap overstatements in this admittedly somewhat tongue in cheek article, but I´m sure it should elicit some reactions amongst our readership.
Shot Down in Flames
Yesterday, Commissioner Almunia shot down its first merger since in office. The Commission vetoed the proposed merger between Aegean Airlines and Olympic Air, considering it would result in a quasi-monopoly on the Greek air transport market.
In its press release, the Commission seeks to assuage concerns of over-enforcement. Here are some excerpts:
“The Commission has examined 11 mergers and many alliances in this sector since 2004 and this is only the second negative prohibition“.
“This is the first merger prohibition since the Ryanair/Aer Lingus case in 2007. In total 20 cases have been prohibited out of a total of more than 4,500 mergers reviewed“.
Such statements are the tree hiding the forest. With the GC’s confirmation of the Commission decision in Ryan Air/Aer Lingus and the very many decisions where the Commission requested heavy remedies, merger policy in the airlines sector is all but a soft one (possibly for good reasons).
ChillinLeaks (or kind of)
There’s been a bunch of significant antitrust news in recent days.
Since they have already been revealed on other websites, they are not genuine ChillinLeaks.
- We learned today that the august Trevor Soames had left Howrey Brussels. We wish him luck for his new ventures. We do also wish luck to our good friend Miguel Rato who, in addition to being one of the brightest young competition lawyers in the market, was recently made partner there (and to other friends who have left/stay with the firm).
- Very many thanks also Geoffroy Van de Walle de Ghelcke who informed us that the European Google Antitrust Questionnaire had been posted on the Internet (and on the excellent antitrust review).
- Finally, I have been interviewed yesterday on Apple’s threats to remove free newpapers’ applications from AppStore . Apple apparently wants to push newspapers to sell (read in exchange for a price) online subscriptions for iPads exclusively through iTunes (and not for free through other platforms or in connection with paper subscriptions). The Belgian Minister for economic affairs – yes, there is a government in Belgium, though it is well beyond use-by date – has requested the Competition Directorate General to open an investigation for abuse of dominance. According to the Minister, this issue, which seems to arise in other Member States, should be dealt with at the European level. Until recently, Apple has enjoyed a relative degree of immunity in so far as EU competition law is concerned.
ChillinLeaks
We were the firsts to report on the replacement of N. Calvino and on the whole reshuffling of DG COMP a while ago.
We got a fresh hand on the draft horizontal guidelines, and provided some hints on their contents.
10 days ago, we were the ones to announce that the Commission is attempting to cook a cartel case on the exclusive basis of economic evidence.
Given our proven ability to chill competition on the market for breaking antitrust news, Alfonso and I have decided to formally start a ChillinLeaks column. We simply hope not to be accused of serious criminal offenses in Sweden.
Should you wish to contribute to the free flow of AT-related information, and send us revelations and stories for disclosure on this blog, please note that we apply the highest standard of confidentiality to our sources. You may also reach us by phone, should you prefer this communications means.
To inaugurate this new column, here’s the big news (still unofficial):
Kai-Uwe Kühn (University of Michigan) will be the next Chief Economist of DG COMP, and will replace D. Neven who’s supposed to step down shortly. Kühn is a specialist of collusion, collective dominance and hi-tech industries (read Microsoft and interoperability issues). He has consulted, if our information is correct, for CRA International. He holds a Phd in economics from Oxford University. Congrats to him.
Alfonso and Nicolas
(PS: Image possibly subject to copyrights. Source here)
Chillin'Competition 
