Showing posts with label antitrust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antitrust. Show all posts

14 April 2013

Google Under Attack in the EU: Microsoft to the Rescue?


As I wrote last week, all the main browsers are jockeying for position in the world of mobile, which is generally recognised as the key future platform. One player that is struggling here is Microsoft: its mobile phone strategy has signally failed to take off, leaving it a minor player alongside the duopoly of Apple and Google. Its tie-up with Nokia is part of its attempt to make its products relevant here, but another important aspect of its counter-attack is through the legal system.

17 March 2010

Speaking of Monsanto and Gene Patents...

And right on cue, like the catastrophe of the old comedy, comes some fresh news about Monsanto and its gene patents:

Monsanto Co., facing antitrust probes into its genetically modified seeds, may benefit from previous court rulings in which intellectual property rights trumped competition concerns, antitrust lawyers say.

Got that? Intellectual monopolies, as well as being inherently bad, are also a "Get Out of Jail Card" for companies breaking anti-trust law. Broken, or what? (Via @schestowitz.)

10 March 2008

Windows 7: Out of Luck

Microsoft to date has said little about Windows 7, which had been in development under the code name Blackcomb. It's generally believed that the OS will ship in the 2010 timeframe.

That's one year after the federal government's oversight of Microsoft is now slated to expire. As a result, the Technical Committee is trying to get its hands on as much Windows 7 code as it can as soon as possible. "The TC has begun to review Windows 7 itself. Microsoft recently supplied the TC with a build of Windows 7, and is discussing TC testing going forward," the report stated.

Luckily for us, the EU's interest has no cut-off date....

14 January 2008

EU vs. MS 2.0?

The European Commission opened a new antitrust probe against Microsoft on Monday into whether it unfairly tied its Web browser to the Windows operating system and made it harder for rival software to work with Windows.

But the good news is:

"This initiation of proceedings does not imply that the Commission has proof of an infringement. It only signifies that the Commission will further investigate the case as a matter of priority," the Commission said.

Oh, that's alright, then.

29 August 2007

Er, Respect is Something You Earn, Actually

It must be a bit irksome being an antitrust regulator in the United States when your European counterparts are (a) more likely to interfere with the private sector and (b) look disdainfully at federal agencies as wishy-washy.

Which is probably why William Kovacic, one of the Federal Trade Commission's five members, spent nearly an hour on Monday defending the American approach as reasoned and no less thorough than that of its cross-Atlantic counterparts. There is a "tendency on the part of our European colleagues to dismiss the U.S. experience," he said.

Well, one word: Microsoft.

Ambushed by Patents

I've not written about the Rambus case before, because it seemed frankly rather dull. But I was wrong: there is an important principle at its heart:

European Union regulators have charged Rambus Inc. with antitrust abuse, alleging the memory chip designer demanded ''unreasonable'' royalties for its patents that were fraudulently set as industry standards.

The EU's preliminary charges, announced Thursday, come weeks after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ruled the company deceived a standards-setting committee by failing to disclose that its patented technology would be needed to comply with the standard.

As a result, every manufacturer that wanted to make synchronous dynamic access memory chips had to negotiate a license with Rambus.

Both EU and U.S. antitrust officials allege that this allowed Rambus gain an illegal monopoly in the 1990s for DRAM chips used in personal computers, servers, printers, personal digital assistants and other electronics.

Clearly these kinds of patent ambushes are potentially a general problem, and indicate why real standards must only allow completely patent-free technologies. If a company wants its patented technology to become a standard, it must give its patents.