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?
-
Aka " From Digital Feudalism to Digital Sovereignty " - UCL IIPP, blog and video here. First of all, I strongly recommend watching... -
P. Krugman, here. [In 2017 (!) I had the honour of talking about fintech, competition, and the PSD2 to a Brazilian audience - people were...
-
P. Samuelson, here.
-
TechCentral.ie, here .
-
Not the usual Competition Commissioner's statement. Whole-of-Commission Approach? EC, here . [Dutch company buying an US company, mind... -
Article 19 et al., here . Activating the full DMA's potential (Episode XX, still only scratching the surface): "Article 27 Infor...
-
South Korea: Local DMA Bill "likely to be put on hold due to pressure from the TRUMP administration"S. Lee (from LinkedIn), here . "Discovered" by a researcher coming back from vacation? Don't they have civil society active ...
-
Bloomberg, here .
