Goodreader.com, here.
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Friday, October 30, 2015
Zum Gerichtsstand bei kollektiven Kartellschadensersatzklagen
Gerichtshof Amsterdam, Urteil vom 21.7.2015, Geschäftsnummer: 200.156.295/01 - Kemira/CDC, hier.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Generating innovative and sustainable solutions to social challenges using open data
Open Data Institute and Nesta, here.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
High-Cost Short-Term Credit Price Comparison Websites
London Economics for the for the UK Financial Conduct
Authority, here.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
ECJ Judgment in AC-Treuhand (C-194/14 P) – On the scope of Art. 101 (1) TFEU
A. Lamadrid and S. Villiers, here.
Serial offenders: Why some industries seem prone to endemic collusion
Background Note by the OECD Secretariat, here.
The impact of disruptive innovations on competition law enforcement
A. de Streel and P. Larouche for the OECD, here.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Saturday, October 24, 2015
UN Report: Protection of Sources and Whistleblowers
Special Rapporteur tothe UN General Assembly, here.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
UK’s largest online pharmacy fined £130,000 for selling patients’ data to scammers
MedConfidential, here.
ICO's "Monetary Penalty Notice" here.
"35. Pharmacy2U has obtained personal data unfairly because its online registration form and privacy policy did not inform its customers that it intended to sell their details to third party organisations, in addition to sending out its own marketing material. It would not be within a customer’s reasonable expectation that this form of disclosure would occur, even if they were willing to agree to the receipt of marketing material from Pharmacy2U itself. If a customer wished to take up Pharmacy2U’s offer to opt out of “Selected company data sharing”, they also had to go to the trouble of logging into their account and changing the setting.
36. In addition, Pharmacy2U did not provide the further information that was necessary to enable the processing in respect of its customers to be fair.
37. In the circumstances, Pharmacy2U’s customers did not give their informed consent to the sale of their personal data to third party organisations. Therefore Pharmacy2U did not have a lawful basis for processing the data under Part I of Schedule 2 to the DPA.
73. The Commissioner has decided that it is appropriate to issue a monetary penalty in this case, in light of the nature and seriousness of the contravention, Pharmacy2U’s shortcomings in terms of its DPA duties and the risks posed to a number of individuals. He has also considered the importance of monetary penalties in dissuading future contraventions of the DPA and encouraging compliance, in accordance with his policy."
ICO's "Monetary Penalty Notice" here.
"35. Pharmacy2U has obtained personal data unfairly because its online registration form and privacy policy did not inform its customers that it intended to sell their details to third party organisations, in addition to sending out its own marketing material. It would not be within a customer’s reasonable expectation that this form of disclosure would occur, even if they were willing to agree to the receipt of marketing material from Pharmacy2U itself. If a customer wished to take up Pharmacy2U’s offer to opt out of “Selected company data sharing”, they also had to go to the trouble of logging into their account and changing the setting.
36. In addition, Pharmacy2U did not provide the further information that was necessary to enable the processing in respect of its customers to be fair.
37. In the circumstances, Pharmacy2U’s customers did not give their informed consent to the sale of their personal data to third party organisations. Therefore Pharmacy2U did not have a lawful basis for processing the data under Part I of Schedule 2 to the DPA.
73. The Commissioner has decided that it is appropriate to issue a monetary penalty in this case, in light of the nature and seriousness of the contravention, Pharmacy2U’s shortcomings in terms of its DPA duties and the risks posed to a number of individuals. He has also considered the importance of monetary penalties in dissuading future contraventions of the DPA and encouraging compliance, in accordance with his policy."
Monday, October 19, 2015
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Friday, October 16, 2015
Price comparison websites: Ofgem investigation
Press release, here,
"...investigation to look at whether some price comparison websites have breached competition law in relation to paid online search advertising"
"...investigation to look at whether some price comparison websites have breached competition law in relation to paid online search advertising"
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Consumers are no longer 'Googling' products, they're 'Amazoning' them
Bizjournals.com, here (research by BloomReach, co-founded by former Google scientist).
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Antitrust claim for “sham” patent enforcement
Shuffle Tech International v. Scientific Games Corporation, here.
Positionspapier zum Urteil des Gerichtshofs der Europäischen Union vom 6. Oktober 2015, C-362/14
Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz, hier.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Sunlight: Fine-grained Targeting Detection at Scale with Statistical Confidence
M. Lecuyer, R. Spahn, Y. Spiliopoulos,
A. Chaintreau, R. Geambasu, and D. Hsu, here.
Monday, October 12, 2015
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Friday, October 09, 2015
Thursday, October 08, 2015
Data-Driven Innovation: Big Data for Growth and Well-Being
OECD, here (read only - no search, offline reading, etc.; PDF available, 73 EUR).
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Position Paper Concerning the Implementation of the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, here,
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Ddl concorrenza: sì all'emendamento sugli hotel (narrow MFN)
IlSole24Ore, qui.
Art. 32. 1.
(Nullità delle clausole contrattuali che vietano alle imprese ricettive di offrire prezzi e condizioni migliori rispetto a quelli praticati da piattaforme di distribuzione online).
1. È nullo ogni patto con il quale l'impresa turistico-ricettiva si obbliga a non praticare alla clientela finale, con qualsiasi modalità e qualsiasi strumento, prezzi, termini e ogni altra condizione che siano migliorativi rispetto a quelli praticati dalla stessa impresa per il tramite di soggetti terzi, indipendentemente dalla legge regolatrice del contratto.
Art. 32. 1.
(Nullità delle clausole contrattuali che vietano alle imprese ricettive di offrire prezzi e condizioni migliori rispetto a quelli praticati da piattaforme di distribuzione online).
1. È nullo ogni patto con il quale l'impresa turistico-ricettiva si obbliga a non praticare alla clientela finale, con qualsiasi modalità e qualsiasi strumento, prezzi, termini e ogni altra condizione che siano migliorativi rispetto a quelli praticati dalla stessa impresa per il tramite di soggetti terzi, indipendentemente dalla legge regolatrice del contratto.
Monday, October 05, 2015
Sunday, October 04, 2015
Friday, October 02, 2015
Macht das Kartellrecht deutsche Internetunternehmen kaputt?
Diskussionsrunde zum Kartellrecht, Video hier.
Thursday, October 01, 2015
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Insumos Esenciales, Reguladores y Lecciones para América Latina
Entrevista con el Prof. Richard Whish, aquì.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Saturday, September 26, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
Thursday, September 24, 2015
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Big Data and smart devices and their impact on privacy
European Parliament, Study for the LIBE Committee, here.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Friday, September 18, 2015
Does the 'right to be forgotten' apply to company registers?
Case C-398/15 - Manni, Questions to the CJEU (not yet available on the Curia's website - ?), referring Corte di Cassazione qui.
Thursday, September 17, 2015
The valuation of unprotected works: A case study of public domain photopraphs on Wikipedia
P. Heald, M. Kretschmer, K. Erickson, here.
Refusal to license intellectual property under Chinese antitrust regime
Internationallawoffice.com, here.
TV ad on abuse of dominance (India)
Video here.
Thank you CCI! Also a powerful introduction to a course on competition policy for managers.
Thank you CCI! Also a powerful introduction to a course on competition policy for managers.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Should libraries start ditching books to bring in new tech?
Washingtonpost.com, here.
“Siempre imaginé que el Paraíso sería algún tipo de biblioteca”
Jorge Luis Borges
“Siempre imaginé que el Paraíso sería algún tipo de biblioteca”
Jorge Luis Borges
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Monday, September 14, 2015
Friday, September 11, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
Input Price Discrimination (Bans), Entry and Welfare
M. Dertwinkel-Kalt,
J. Haucap,
C. Wey, here.
In European Journal of Law and Economics 2015 under the title "Procompetitive Dual Pricing"
In European Journal of Law and Economics 2015 under the title "Procompetitive Dual Pricing"
Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Matera v. Google
Case number 5:15-cv-04062, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, here.
Impacto del Nuevo Artículo 32.2 de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual
Nera para la Asociación Española de
Editoriales de Publicaciones Periódicas
(AEEPP), aquì.
Beschluss zum Streit um das Leistungsschutzrecht
Bundeskartellamt, hier.
"Auch ein marktbeherrschendes Unternehmen kann kartellrechtlich nicht dazu verpflichtet werden, bei einer ungeklärten Rechtslage ein erhebliches Schadensersatzrisiko einzugehen"
"Auch ein marktbeherrschendes Unternehmen kann kartellrechtlich nicht dazu verpflichtet werden, bei einer ungeklärten Rechtslage ein erhebliches Schadensersatzrisiko einzugehen"
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
Monday, September 07, 2015
Saturday, September 05, 2015
Wettbewerbspolitik in digitalen Märkten aus Verbrauchersicht
Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, hier.
Friday, September 04, 2015
Thursday, September 03, 2015
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Tuesday, September 01, 2015
Monday, August 31, 2015
Friday, August 28, 2015
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Monday, August 24, 2015
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Friday, July 24, 2015
Advocate general deals another blow to economic assessment of rebates
KluwerCompetitionLawBlog, here.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
On-demand Transport: A discussion paper for future innovation
West Australian Department of Transport, here.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Friday, July 17, 2015
Thursday, July 16, 2015
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).
"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).
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Monday, July 13, 2015
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
Données de santé : anonymat et risque de ré-identification
Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques (Drees), ici.
Tuesday, July 07, 2015
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Centre for a Digital Society , Video here . These are my very rough talking points on pay or okay in full length (more than I actually had...
-
Arstechnica.co.uk, here .
-
TechCrunch, here .
-
Lesechos.fr, ici .
-
Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth, June 4-5 2015, Agenda here .
-
On with Kara Swisher, here .
-
E. Schmidt, here . { " Everything needs to change , so everything can stay the same" }
-
CERRE, Panel here . CERRE Report, here .