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?
-
The DSA delivers, the DSA delivers not Sitting in a city park, looking at an impressive number of daisies, I am finally listening to the ver...
-
P. Girnus, here. I am the Executive Director of an independent AI policy think tank. Independent means we don't take government money....
-
What is particularly encouraging is that he's not someone who has lived exclusively within the competition policy world/bubble, but rath... -
OECD, here. Tbd today, Trento U.
-
Politico.eu, here. On the one hand, one has Caffarra, and others like her, insisting that the whole thing is a farce. On the other, there ...
-
M. Peitz, here . [Disagree, of course]
-
L. Hof, here.
-
S. Cohen, T. Davies here . A sort of licence fee ("mechanisms of compensation") is also the result we suggested coming from a ...
