The Verge, here.
Showing posts with label US Microsoft case. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Microsoft case. Show all posts
Sunday, November 10, 2019
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Tuesday, October 23, 2018
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Tuesday, July 03, 2018
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Brad Smith:"the single greatest cost was the distraction...we missed search"
Recode, Video here (at (8:32).
Missed: not aware or didn't dare (to hamper Google et al. because of the annoying DoJ's antitrust laser beam)?
Going to show this video to my students...forever.
Funny though that antitrust might be considered a distraction by Big Tech, while many of their tools are generally considered weapons of mass distraction.
Missed: not aware or didn't dare (to hamper Google et al. because of the annoying DoJ's antitrust laser beam)?
Going to show this video to my students...forever.
Funny though that antitrust might be considered a distraction by Big Tech, while many of their tools are generally considered weapons of mass distraction.
Monday, May 14, 2018
U.S. vs. Microsoft: 20 Years Later, Lessons Learned and the Path Ahead
Yelp Video, here.
Highest exposure to antitrust enforcement (Panel 1)?
G x x x x
Apple
F x
Amazon x x x
(Gary Reback getting more depressed after each panel).
Highest exposure to antitrust enforcement (Panel 1)?
G x x x x
Apple
F x
Amazon x x x
(Gary Reback getting more depressed after each panel).
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Google wins dismissal of U.S. lawsuit over Android app limits
Reuters.com, here. Order here.
Footnote 9: "At a higher level of abstraction, this means that those competitors who cannot access users are unable to improve their search algorithms, thereby impairing their ability to compete with Defendant on the merits of their respective search products... This is akin to the theory of Sherman Act § 2 monopoly maintenance described in Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60-62, wherein Microsoft’s exclusive licensing terms prevented OEMs from promoting rival Internet browsers, thereby reducing rival browser usage and developer interest in those browsers, with the effect of maintaining developer focus on developing for Microsoft’s Windows operating system, which contributed to maintaining Microsoft’s monopoly over the market for operating systems" (emphasis added).
Footnote 9: "At a higher level of abstraction, this means that those competitors who cannot access users are unable to improve their search algorithms, thereby impairing their ability to compete with Defendant on the merits of their respective search products... This is akin to the theory of Sherman Act § 2 monopoly maintenance described in Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 60-62, wherein Microsoft’s exclusive licensing terms prevented OEMs from promoting rival Internet browsers, thereby reducing rival browser usage and developer interest in those browsers, with the effect of maintaining developer focus on developing for Microsoft’s Windows operating system, which contributed to maintaining Microsoft’s monopoly over the market for operating systems" (emphasis added).
Monday, December 01, 2014
Monday, November 17, 2014
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Monday, May 30, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Panel, Programme here , Video here .
-
LG Frankfurt am Main, 2-06 O 172/09 (verkündet am 13.05.2009). Lesenswertes aus der Begründung (meine Hervorhebungen): "Vorstellbare ...
-
IPOS, here . Circular 3/18 here .
-
FTC Hearings, Video here .
-
M. Sheehan, here .