Brazil agency to offer pro-competition view on any Uber lawsuits

WKZO, here

CJEU: Huawei v. ZTE

Press release, here. Judgment here.

"Moreover, in February 2013 a German Regional Tribunal posed to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) five questions whose answers could be influential in shaping the interpretation of Article 102 TFEU with regard to intellectual property rights’ enforcement in the context of standardization" from some notes I took back in April 2013, here (it feels like AGES ago).

Bundeskartellamt verhängt Bußgelder gegen Rüstungslieferanten wegen Kartellabsprachen

Bundeskartellamt, hier

European Commission opens antitrust investigations against Qualcomm—again

ArsTechnica, here.

Google's ad system: too big to control

Wired, here.

Right to open access laid down in Dutch Copyright Act

UU.nl, here

Facebook voices support for EU data protection law changes

V3.co.uk, here.

(A true "man bites dog" moment).

Rapport annuel 2014

B. Lasserre, Présentation à la presse, ici

Le dommage à l’économie

Autorité de la concurrence, ici

Passengers sue airlines over allegations of price collusion

TheHill, here.

Données de santé : anonymat et risque de ré-identification

Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques (Drees), ici

Are the European Competition Authorities making a less anticompetitive market more anticompetitive? The Booking.com saga

P. Akman, here

Complaint Regarding Google’s Failure To Offer ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ In The U.S

Consumer Watchdog, here

Competitive neutrality and its application in selected developing countries

UNCTAD, here.

Activating Actavis in Europe – The Proposal of a “Structured Effects-based” Analysis for Pay for Delay Settlements

S. Gullasch, here

Adding a New Dimension to EU Pharmaceutical Antitrust - Pay for Delay Settlements as Part of a Unilateral Strategy such as Product Hopping

S. Gullasch, here

Neuer juristischer Ärger für Daimler-Tochter myTaxi wegen Rabatten

Heise.de, hier.

Bulgarian Competition Authority has fined the companies that provide Uber's services

Novinite.com, here.
Press Release of the Commission for Protection of Competition, here.

Google Translate: 
CPC penalize companies Hubert Dutch BV and Razier Opareyshans BV with 50 000 lev for violations under Art. 29 of the LPC (general prohibition of unfair competition) in connection with the provision of the service UberX in the city. Sofia on 12.09.2014 In its decision, the Commission states the termination of the infringements. , and immediate execution of the decision in that part .
The proceedings is initiated automatically by a Commission decision in relation to the received from the Municipality of Sofia information on the introduction of the service "UberX" in the city. Sofia and subsequently merged with other proceedings instituted at the request of "Okay Supertrans" against AD "Hubert Bulgaria" EOOD, again in connection with the service UberX .
During the study found that in providing the service UberX by Hubert BV and Razier Opareyshans BV offenses against the general prohibition of Art. 29 of the CPA. The service has the marks of taxi passengers as far as is done by car fee, requested by the passenger route through the mobile app Uber, which liaises between the passenger and the actual executor of carriage - the user-guide.A comparison between p redlaganite by Hubert BV and Razier Opareyshans BV services and services provided by other mobile applications (even the services of a typical taxi companies) reaches the conclusion that the services are interchangeable, since   lead to the same result - the implementation of a paid shuttle point to another. But in the case at UberX not require the contractor to transport meets specified in the Bulgarian legislation requirements to taxi drivers and their cars. In this sense, when providing service process Hubert BV and Razier Opareyshans BV violate fair trade practice being contrary to the statutory rules governing the conduct of public transport / taxi. Hubert BV and Razier Opareyshans BV create conditions for circumvention, saving users guides means of obtaining the necessary licenses and permits for taxis. Thus the defendants violated the rules of fair competition, procure unfair advantage over competitors and the economic benefit of this behavior.
The Commission also imposed a fine of two companies 50 000 Levs of default for assistance for lack of refined during the study information.
 Commission finds that by "Hubert Bulgaria" EOOD is not a violation of art. 29 of the CPA, as the company is not directly involved in providing the service UberX,   and perform ancillary to Hubert B. C.
Full text of the Decision in Bulgarian, here

Net Neutrality: Department of Telecom panel against Facebook's Internet.org, favours Airtel Zero

IndiaToday, here

Personal Data and Privacy

WIK-Consult for Ofcom, here.

Orphan works in the US: getting rid of “a frustration, a liability risk, and a major cause of gridlock”?

R.Meier, here

Discovering the Miracle of Large Numbers of Antitrust Investigations in Russia: The Role of Competition Authority Incentives

S. Advasheva, D. Tsytsulina, S. Golovanova,  Y. Sidorova, here

Promoting or restricting competition?: Regulation of the UK retail residential energy market since 2008

S. Littlechild, here

Product Redesign and the Abuse of Dominance: The apple IPod Itune Litigation

L. Popofsky, here

The Fine Line Between “Fortuitous Discovery” and “Fishing Expedition:" CoJ Finds Dawn Raids by the EC to be Illegal

Steptoe.com, here

Netzneutralität: Europa schafft ab

FAZ, hier

At last, Uber has found a friend in India

QZ.com, here

UK Energy market investigation

Summary of provisional findings report, here; Notice of possible remedies, here

Marktmachtmissbrauch der Deutsche Post AG im Bereich der Großkundentarife

Bundeskartellamt, hier

Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discrimination

Am.Datta, Michael C. Tschantz, and An. Datta, here.

Probing the Dark Side of Google’s Ad-Targeting System

Technologyreview.com, here

Openness/Open Access for Public Sector information and works — the Creative Commons licensing model

Epsiplatform.eu, here

The French, Italian and Swedish Competition Authorities Accept the Commitments Offered by Booking.com

ECN Brief 2/2015, here.
No direct link, hence:
In their investigations of so-called "price parity" clauses (also called "best price" clauses) contained in agreements between online travel agencies (OTAs) and hotels, the French Competition Authority (FCA), the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) and the Swedish Competition Authority (SCA) coordinated their investigations and, on 21 April 2015, adopted parallel decisions accepting identical commitments [1] from the market-leading OTA Booking.com and making them binding in their respective jurisdictions. The European Commission assisted the authorities in coordinating their work.
OTAs such as Booking.com operate internet platforms, on which consumers can search for, compare and book hotel rooms free of charge. Hotels only pay commission to the OTA for its services when a booking is made. The price parity clauses essentially require the hotels to offer the same or a better room price on Booking.com's platform as they offer on their other sales channels, including the hotel's own direct sales channels, be it online or offline. This means that Booking.com can raise its commission rate without the risk that hotels will translate this cost increase by offering higher room prices on Booking.com’s platform than on competing OTA platforms. The price parity clause, combined with the fact that hotels generally tend to sign up with several competing platforms, implies that Booking.com has less incentive to compete with other OTAs by charging lower commission rates to hotels than would otherwise be the case. As a result, the price parity clauses may restrict competition between existing OTAs and may lead to higher commission rates, which in turn may translate into higher consumer prices for hotel rooms. Furthermore, the price parity clause may constitute a barrier to entry on the market, by making it more difficult for an OTA to enter or expand on the market by competing with low commission rates in exchange for hotels offering lower room prices on that OTA’s platform. The three national competition authorities (NCAs) launched investigations to ascertain whether the price parity clauses in Booking.com’s agreements with hotels infringed the prohibition of restrictive agreements in Article 101 TFEU and, in the case of France and Sweden, the equivalent national legislation. The FCA’s investigation was also initiated on the basis of a possible infringement of the prohibition against abuse of dominance of Article 102 TFEU and its national equivalent.
In the course of the investigations, Booking.com conducted a customer survey of 14 000 consumers in 9 Member States and produced economic papers to argue, essentially, that parity between room prices in hotels’ own sales channels and prices offered on Booking.com’s platform is important in preventing free-riding on Booking.com’s investments and ensuring the continued supply of search and comparison services free of charge to consumers.
To solve the identified competition concerns, Booking.com offered a first version of commitments that were market tested and subsequently improved. In essence, the adopted commitments prevent Booking.com from requiring hotels to offer better or equal room prices via Booking.com than they do via competing OTAs. In addition, Booking.com cannot prevent hotels from offering discounted room prices provided that these are not marketed or made available to the general public online. The discounted prices can be offered online to members of a hotel’s loyalty scheme and/or via offline channels (e g direct emails, telephone and walk-in bookings).
The three NCAs performed economic analyses of the commitments and concluded that the will meet their competition concerns. The commitments will put pressure on OTAs' commission rates and the quality of service, which will ultimately lead to lower room prices and better services for consumers. The commitments will also make it easier for new OTAs to enter the market and for innovative OTAs to expand.
Following the commitment decision, the Booking.com cases were closed in France, Italy and Sweden. However, the respective competition authorities continue their investigations concerning Expedia’s price parity clauses and in France also concerning HRS's parity clauses.
See further:

[1] The French version of the commitments provides for a mid-term review.

OTA lobby report preceded US airline antitrust inquiry, House of Cards-style

Tnooz.com, here

Uber annonce la suspension d’UberPop en France

Le Monde, ici

OTAs see chaos when rate parity ends

HotelMarketing.com, here

Challenging assumptions about behavioral policy

Behavioral Science & Policy Association, here

Ubérisation : une course au moins disant social ?

Mechanical Turk
F. Marty, ici

Dutch universities start their Elsevier boycott plan

Vermeer, Brieflezende vrouw in het blauw

Universonline.nl, here

Algorithms and competition

M. Vestager, here . Large friendly letters? "It's true that the idea of automated systems getting together and reaching a...