Feb 13
The Anschluss of Comcast and Time Warner Cable is not over yet
     |
Oct 01
When Google acquired Waze back in June, the Federal Trade Commission decided to investigate the deal to see if it violated antitrust regulations, and today, it looks like Mountain View is in the clear. According to Bloomberg’s sources (unnamed people “familiar with the matter,” naturally), the FTC will not interfere with the acquisition, as the $1 billion purchase isn’t seen as an aggressive act designed to stifle competition. The review’s outcome is indeed welcome news at Google, as the company can now proceed with integrating Waze’s crowd-sourced traffic and mapping capabilities with its own services. By this point, antitrust challenges must be awfully familiar to the folks at Google, but we’re pretty sure that winning them never gets old.
Via: The Verge
Source: Bloomberg
Oct 01
Google and the European Commission have been doing their seemingly interminable antitrust dance for three years now, but today’s development might signal a shift in the tides. In July, the EU’s Competition Commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, had deemed Google’s previous concession offer unworthy and informed Eric Schmidt that the company had to “present better proposals.” According to The New York Times, Google has evidently heeded his words and ponied up a new offer that’s evidently enough to please the antitrust chief, although specific terms have yet to be disclosed.
At the heart of the problem is Google’s tendency to squeeze its rivals (including, but not limited to, Microsoft, Foundem and Hotmaps) out of search results, making it difficult for users to find them. The new offer allegedly addresses those concerns, and while it’s unlikely that a decision will be made earlier than next spring, the EU’s tentative approval of Google’s efforts could mean that case is inching its way to a settlement. Almunia has said that he intends to present the proposal to the complainants in the case, who seem less than enthused. David Wood, the legal counsel for the Microsoft-backed Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP) told the Times, “It is far from clear from Commissioner Almunia’s description of the revised package of proposed commitments that they go nearly far enough.”
Filed under: Misc, Internet, Google
Source: The New York Times, Reuters
Sep 19
When Google acquired Waze, it said that it would keep the newly purchased company at arm’s length. Well, we now know exactly how separate Waze will be, at least for the foreseeable future. Google has promised the UK’s Office of Fair Trading that it won’t touch Waze’s business operations while the British regulator determines its authority over the deal. The search giant has also offered to warn if there are any substantial changes in staff, business plans or customer numbers for both itself and Waze. The terms may not last forever — if the OFT decides to review the acquisition, it can reject Google’s offer. For now, though, Waze will (mostly) remain a distinct entity.
Via: Bloomberg
Source: Office of Fair Trading (PDF)
Aug 23
DOJ offers to cut injunction time in Apple e-book case, stays firm on key points
Posted in: Today's Chili
The US Justice Department was insistent that its proposed injunction against Apple for alleged e-book price fixing was the proper remedy earlier this month, but it’s now willing to budge on that somewhat. As Reuters reports, the DOJ has offered to cut the length of the injunction from ten to five years, and ease the restrictions on Apple striking new deals with book publishers — it now suggests Apple hold staggered negotiations with publishers starting in two years. The DOJ continues to insist on the need for an external monitor to keep an eye on the company, however, which remains a non-starter for Apple.
The company also drew some particularly harsh criticism from the DOJ, which stated in a filing that “Apple wants to continue business as usual, regardless of the antitrust laws,” and that “this court should have no confidence that Apple on its own effectively can ensure that its illegal conduct will not be repeated.” For its part, Apple isn’t commenting on the DOJ’s latest proposal.
Filed under: Apple
Source: Reuters
Aug 09
Apple, in its ongoing battle over an e-book price fixing scandal, has been dealt yet another setback. Last month, Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had violated antitrust laws in conspiring with publishers to raise e-book prices. Cupertino asked for a temporary suspension of her ruling while it sought to appeal the penalties leveled against it, but today Judge Cote refused that request. The company maintains its innocence, and its co-defendants have jumped to its defense in the wake of a strong restrictions handed down by the Justice Department. But, increasingly, it appears that Apple is fighting a losing battle. We’re sure that there are still tricks in its legal arsenal, but there is little indication that Cupertino will be able to avoid terminating its existing agreements with publishers and will be barred from engaging in agency pricing before the end of the DoJ’s five-year ban.
Filed under: Apple
Source: Associated Press
Aug 09
DOJ defends Apple e-book price fixing injunction, says publishers had it easy
Posted in: Today's Chili
The US Department of Justice isn’t buying publishers’ arguments that proposed injunctions against Apple for alleged e-book price fixing are excessive and contradictory. DOJ attorney Lawrence Buterman claims in a response letter that the penalties against Apple are necessarily harsher, since it didn’t settle the accusations like its reported co-conspirators. The group objection even justifies Apple’s punishment, Buterman claims; it suggests that publishers are just waiting until the end of a two-year ban on agency pricing to raise prices once again. The five-year restriction imposed on Apple could keep prices down for longer, the lawyer says.
Apple, meanwhile, isn’t done with its objections. In addition to an earlier request for a stay on proceedings pending an appeal, it now contends that the court excluded or ignored testimony while giving Amazon and Google witnesses too much credibility. The company will present more of its opinion at a conference today with both the DOJ and the presiding judge, but we’re not expecting a quick resolution — neither side is budging at this stage.
Filed under: Internet, Software, Apple
Source: Letters to the court (1), (2), (3), (4)
Aug 02
Apple is not happy with the Department of Justice and friends. On Friday afternoon, just a few hours after the DOJ and 33 state attorneys general proposed a series of remedies
| |
Aug 02
After a U.S. District Court judged found Apple guilty
| |
Aug 02
DOJ demands Apple terminate publisher deals and rival e-bookstore restrictions (updated)
Posted in: Today's Chili
In a decisive move in the legal battle surrounding Apple’s fishy e-book pricing practices, the US Department of Justice has issued a proposed remedy aimed at leveling the playing field. The terms of the proposal, which requires approval by the court, call for an end to Apple’s deals with major publishing houses, as well as allowing rival e-book apps, like Amazon’s, to link to their own online bookstores. The announcement is hardly surprising, considering that it comes just a few weeks after US District Judge Denise Cote ruled that Apple had conspired to bump up the retail prices of e-books. In the official brief, Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer said, “Under the department’s proposed order, Apple’s illegal conduct will cease and Apple and its senior executives will be prevented from conspiring to thwart competition in the future.” You can read the release in full after the break.
Update: Apple has formally responded to the Department of Justice’s proposal and predictably, the company isn’t happy. In a filing with the United States District Court, Apple said, “Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction is a draconian and punitive intrusion into Apple’s business, wildly out of proportion to any adjudicated wrongdoing or potential harm.” Apple also disputed the DOJ’s assertion that its plan is intended to foster healthy competition, arguing that the “overreaching proposal would establish a vague new compliance regime — applicable only to Apple — with intrusive oversight lasting for ten years, going far beyond the legal issues in this case, injuring competition and consumers, and violating basic principles of fairness and due process.” While the tides seem to be turning against Apple as the case moves forward, Cupertino is evidently not going down without a fight.
Via: All Things D, All Things D
Who's in charge here?
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.