FAZ, hier.
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
The government says airlines prey on consumers. That’s the government’s fault.
Washingtonpost.com, here.
The Ecosystem of Software Platform: A Study of Asymmetric Cross-side Network Effects and Platform Governance
P. Song, L. Xue, A. Rai, C. Zhang, here.
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.
Complaint Regarding Google’s Failure To Offer ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ In The U.S
Consumer Watchdog, here.
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.
Discovering the Miracle of Large Numbers of Antitrust Investigations in Russia: The Role of Competition Authority Incentives
S. Advasheva, D. Tsytsulina, S. Golovanova, Y. Sidorova, here.
Automated Experiments on Ad Privacy Settings: A Tale of Opacity, Choice, and Discrimination
Am.Datta, Michael C. Tschantz, and An. Datta, here.
Monday, July 06, 2015
Sunday, July 05, 2015
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Friday, July 03, 2015
The French, Italian and Swedish Competition Authorities Accept the Commitments Offered by Booking.com
ECN Brief 2/2015, here.
No direct link, hence:
No direct link, hence:
In their investigations of so-called "price parity" clauses (also called "best price" clauses) contained in agreements between online travel agencies (OTAs) and hotels, the French Competition Authority (FCA), the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) and the Swedish Competition Authority (SCA) coordinated their investigations and, on 21 April 2015, adopted parallel decisions accepting identical commitments [1] from the market-leading OTA Booking.com and making them binding in their respective jurisdictions. The European Commission assisted the authorities in coordinating their work.
OTAs such as Booking.com operate internet platforms, on which consumers can search for, compare and book hotel rooms free of charge. Hotels only pay commission to the OTA for its services when a booking is made. The price parity clauses essentially require the hotels to offer the same or a better room price on Booking.com's platform as they offer on their other sales channels, including the hotel's own direct sales channels, be it online or offline. This means that Booking.com can raise its commission rate without the risk that hotels will translate this cost increase by offering higher room prices on Booking.com’s platform than on competing OTA platforms. The price parity clause, combined with the fact that hotels generally tend to sign up with several competing platforms, implies that Booking.com has less incentive to compete with other OTAs by charging lower commission rates to hotels than would otherwise be the case. As a result, the price parity clauses may restrict competition between existing OTAs and may lead to higher commission rates, which in turn may translate into higher consumer prices for hotel rooms. Furthermore, the price parity clause may constitute a barrier to entry on the market, by making it more difficult for an OTA to enter or expand on the market by competing with low commission rates in exchange for hotels offering lower room prices on that OTA’s platform. The three national competition authorities (NCAs) launched investigations to ascertain whether the price parity clauses in Booking.com’s agreements with hotels infringed the prohibition of restrictive agreements in Article 101 TFEU and, in the case of France and Sweden, the equivalent national legislation. The FCA’s investigation was also initiated on the basis of a possible infringement of the prohibition against abuse of dominance of Article 102 TFEU and its national equivalent.
In the course of the investigations, Booking.com conducted a customer survey of 14 000 consumers in 9 Member States and produced economic papers to argue, essentially, that parity between room prices in hotels’ own sales channels and prices offered on Booking.com’s platform is important in preventing free-riding on Booking.com’s investments and ensuring the continued supply of search and comparison services free of charge to consumers.
To solve the identified competition concerns, Booking.com offered a first version of commitments that were market tested and subsequently improved. In essence, the adopted commitments prevent Booking.com from requiring hotels to offer better or equal room prices via Booking.com than they do via competing OTAs. In addition, Booking.com cannot prevent hotels from offering discounted room prices provided that these are not marketed or made available to the general public online. The discounted prices can be offered online to members of a hotel’s loyalty scheme and/or via offline channels (e g direct emails, telephone and walk-in bookings).
The three NCAs performed economic analyses of the commitments and concluded that the will meet their competition concerns. The commitments will put pressure on OTAs' commission rates and the quality of service, which will ultimately lead to lower room prices and better services for consumers. The commitments will also make it easier for new OTAs to enter the market and for innovative OTAs to expand.
Following the commitment decision, the Booking.com cases were closed in France, Italy and Sweden. However, the respective competition authorities continue their investigations concerning Expedia’s price parity clauses and in France also concerning HRS's parity clauses.
See further:
[1] The French version of the commitments provides for a mid-term review.
Dutch universities start their Elsevier boycott plan
 |
Vermeer, Brieflezende vrouw in het blauw |
Thursday, July 02, 2015
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Monday, June 29, 2015
The German Pillow Fight Drags On: "Caution with new terms of Booking.com!"
German Hotel Association, here.
Apparently, "everyone" knew of a leaked (online) copy of Google (Search) Statement of Objections - I didn't
With a little help from @wavesblog readers, perhaps?
Is Google Degrading Search? Consumer Harm from Universal Search
M. Luca, T. Wu and the Yelp Data Science Team, here.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Monday, June 22, 2015
Sunday, June 21, 2015
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Uber driver case poses questions for ‘sharing economy’
FT, here.
"The case highlighted a fundamental dilemma for internet companies built on the booming freelance sector. Establishing some level of control over the workers who use their platforms is often essential to ensuring a consistent level of service.
But the further they go — for instance, by laying down standards of training or conduct — the more they lay themselves open to one day being forced to accept the full responsibilities of employers. For the California labour commissioner, Uber’s control of pricing, tipping, driver ratings and the type of car made it look like an employer."
Friday, June 19, 2015
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Time to stick a fork in these Android competition complaints
Computer & Communications Industry Association, here.
The General Court upholds the registration of the shape of Lego figures as a Community trade mark
Monday, June 15, 2015
Report on the remote Ebook Lending Pilots
The Society of Chief Librarians and The Publishers Association, here.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Friday, June 12, 2015
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Analysing Google's Public Response to the EC's Statement of Objections
Foundem, here.
(Cool interactive presentation, possibly created with Visme - whose licence is a little expensive, though).
(Cool interactive presentation, possibly created with Visme - whose licence is a little expensive, though).
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Outsourcing Tasks Online: Matching Supply and Demand on Peer-to-Peer Internet Platform
Z. Cullen, C. Farronato, here.
Monday, June 08, 2015
User Reputation: Building Trust and Addressing Privacy Issues in the Sharing Economy
Future of Privacy Forum, here.
Avis concernant un projet de décret et un projet d’arrêté relatifs au transport public particulier de personnes
Autorité de la concurrence, ici.
Sunday, June 07, 2015
Friday, June 05, 2015
Thursday, June 04, 2015
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
App Maker Files EU Complaint Against Google, Alleging Abuse of Android Dominance
WSJ.com, here.
"Disconnect said Google abused its dominant position in Europe’s mobile market to unfairly discriminate against Disconnect and favor its own privacy and security software. The moves limited Europeans’ access to competing privacy and security software, while letting Google and others track and collect Android users’ information for advertising, Disconnect said...The app maker alleged Google pulled Disconnect because the software disrupted Google’s tracking and advertising efforts, the source of most of the Internet company’s revenue and profit. In an email included in the complaint, a Play store employee said the app was removed because it prevented other apps from delivering ads....A Google spokesman called Disconnect’s claims “baseless.” Google has allowed more than 200 other privacy apps in the Play store, but blocks any apps that alter other apps’ functionality or remove their way of making money, he added, saying Google applies this policy uniformly, with strong support from Android developers...Google abused its dominance in mobile operating systems and the app market by “tying” its own software and security to those platforms, Disconnect said in its complaint. That gave its services an unfair advantage over Disconnect’s rival software, reducing competition and consumer choice in the market for privacy and security software, the developer said. Google’s removal of the app also illegally discriminated against Disconnect because Google’s own privacy and security software, which it includes by default in its Android operating system, isn't held to the same standards, Disconnect argued."
More about Disconnect here.
More about Disconnect here.
Monday, June 01, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)