Here the text of the complaint. The facts can be briefly reckoned as follows: - AT&T is the exclusive provider for iPhone cell phone service in the United States; - the duration of the exclusive agreement is to be five years; - Apple is to receive a portion of AT&T’s profit; - iPhone consumers are to be prohibited from using a cell phone carrier other than AT&T; - Apple is to be restrained for a period of time from developing a version of the iPhone for CDMA wireless networks.
As far as competition law is concerned, the facts invest the tying doctrine. In this case, the tying product is the iPhone, whereas the tied product is AT&T's cell phone service.One of the central questions would be: Has Apple sufficient economic power in the tying market to coerce the purchase of the tied product?
-
Here .
-
Google has announced that it is launching AI Overviews and AI Mode (together with other Gemini-based services) in France. While traditional ... -
EC, here . "The Commission also takes note of Google's proposals on how it plans to apply the principles of the decision to AI O...
-
S. Salop, here. From what I have seen, this "modern" economic analysis certainly moves beyond a narrow focus on price. It takes ...
-
Reuters, here . Too little, too late?
-
Pax Silica is presented by the US State Department as its flagship initiative on AI and supply-chain security; the FT reports the EU, Ger...
-
ArsTechnica, here.