by Kevin Coates | Apr 23, 2011 | Apple, Google
An interesting article that covers a lot of the issues about the latest iPhone (and now probably all smartphones) data protection controversy. The current debate raises several different issues: – is this legal under EU data protection rules? It looks as though several national DPOs are going to be looking at this; – do users who have agreed to the terms of service really know what it is they are agreeing to? Or is this a case of users accepting the default settings without really understanding – or perhaps caring? – possibly also the importance of network effects. It’s not clear so far if this location data is being kept by the operating system companies – Apple, Google, RIM etc – to improve their services, or is being passed on to network operators to help improve their networks. If the former, then we have another network effect – the more users a company has that uses your location services, then the more location feedback a company will receive, and the more it can improve the location services. Not a competition law problem, but potentially relevant to looking at questions of market power and barriers to entry. This article titled “iPhones and Android phones building vast databases for Google and Apple” was written by Charles Arthur, for The Guardian on Friday 22nd April 2011 16.20 UTC Apple and Google are using smartphones running their software to build gigantic databases for location-based services, according to new research following the Guardian’s revelations that iPhones and devices running Android collect location data about owners’ movements. iPhones and Android smartphones swap data – which...
by Kevin Coates | Apr 11, 2011 | Antitrust, Google
This article titled “Google wins approval for ITA travel search deal – but antitrust case looms” was written by Jemima Kiss, for guardian.co.uk on Monday 11th April 2011 12.36 UTC Google has been given approval for its takeover of travel search and recommendation service ITA by the US Justice Department, albeit with some fairly heavy strings attached that are designed to prevent the search giant taking advantage of its market position – and lining up a likely broader antitrust investigation. Nine months after Google announced its intended acquisition of ITA, the settlement reached with the Justice Department requires Google to maintain ITA’s software licence with rival flight search sites for five years, as well as its research and development funding. Google will also need to stablish internal firewalls to protect information about ITA’s customers and the Justice Department will be monitoring all of these requirements. Photo by HarshLight on Flickr. Some rights reserved Rival travel search firms – including Expedia, TripAdvisor and Kayak (which all some of whom use ITA’s software) – had lobbied hard in opposition to the 0m takeover. A coalition that also included consolidated airfare service Sabre Holdings and called itself Fairsearch.org seemed satisfied with the restrictions placed on Google, saying in a statement that the Justice Department’s settlement would ensure “that consumers will continue to benefit from vibrant competition and innovation in travel search”. Google had initially said it did not intend to launch a ticket sales service, though the Justice Department’s restrictions would not stop that happening. In an official blog post, Google’s senior vice president of commerce and local, Jeff Huber, said that...
by Kevin Coates | Apr 11, 2011 | Competition Law and Regulation of Technology Markets
Here’s the table of contents for the new book. Each chapter is mostly focused on EU law, but also has a US comparative section. 1. Introduction 2. Objectives of Competition Law and Regulation 3. Introduction to Competition Law 4. Competition Law and Pricing 5. Intellectual Property 6. Competition Law, Standards and Interoperability 7. Product Design and Innovation 8. Networks and Network Neutrality 9, Data, Data Protection and Competition Law Amazon links: UK US France...
by Kevin Coates | Apr 11, 2011 | Competition Law and Regulation of Technology Markets
The blogging hiatus has been caused partly by my return to the European Commission, and partly by the need to finish my new book, Competition Law and Regulation of Technology markets, published by Oxford University Press. The intended audience is practitioners, academics and in-house counsel with an interest in communications and high tech issues, in particular those that need to understand how these issues are handled in both the EU and the US. There are always unintended consequences of course, and I’m extremely pleased that the book has already been recommended on at least one LLM course in communications law. The book is mostly about antitrust in the communications sector, but also covers intellectual property, telecoms regulation and data protection. Its main focus is EU law, but includes substantial analysis of US law as well, highlighting similarities and differences. The book is now available, from all good (niche, specialised) bookstores, and also from the slightly less niche bookseller Amazon: UK US France Germany Happy...
by Kevin Coates | Feb 16, 2010 | Antitrust
Christine Varney’s speeches as the Assistant Attorney General, such as that in Fordham last year, and yesterday’s speech in Paris (Co-ordinated Remedies: Convergence, Co-operation and the Role of Transparency) have struck a very constructive and conciliatory tone on the issue of convergence. Convergence between antitrust authorities, and having a coherent global system is clearly important to her, and she rightly points out that consistency will benefit both agencies and businesses. She also appreciates the limits to convergence, noting that any agency action has to be taken in the context of their own legal systems, and with a view to protect the consumers within that agency’s geographic area. In merger control, convergence works extremely well, particularly when parties time their notifications to the different agencies so that the agencies can move forward on a case together, discussing their thinking, and co-ordinating their information gathering. There are still some disagreements, but complete convergence is almost certainly an unattainable goal – given a complex set of facts, reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate analysis. In recent years, more concern has been expressed about (the lack of) convergence in respect of unilateral conduct. Given the DOJ’s section 2 report published last year, disavowed by several FTC Commissioners, then disavowed by Christine Varney, and withdrawn by the DOJ this year, transatlantic convergence is not the only problem to be addressed. There are profound differences of view within the US legal system and legal community as to the appropriate section 2 liability standards. And these are divisions within one single legal system. When you look at reducing divisions across different legal systems, the problem...