Showing results for: “google”
“You don’t get to be the umpire and have a team”: should we regulate the activities of digital platforms in neighboring markets?
This guest post is by Patrick Todd, an England-qualified solicitor and author on competition law/policy in digital markets. The above quote is not about Democrat-nominee hopeful Elizabeth Warren’s policy views on sport. It is in fact an analogy to her proposal of splitting Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple (“GAFA”) apart from their respective ancillary lines ... “You don’t get to be the umpire and have a team”: should we regulate the activities of digital platforms in neighboring markets?
Making Sense of the Google Android Decision (part 4): The Commission’s Economic Analysis
This is the fourth, and last, in a series of TOTM blog posts discussing the Commission’s recently published Google Android decision (the first post can be found here, and the second here, and the third here). It draws on research from a soon-to-be published ICLE white paper. The previous parts of this series have mostly ... Making Sense of the Google Android Decision (part 4): The Commission’s Economic Analysis
Brennan: Guidance on Enforcement Against “Pure” Vertical Mergers: It’s Complicated
[TOTM: The following is part of a symposium by TOTM guests and authors on the 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines. The entire series of posts is available here.] This post is authored by Timothy J. Brennan (Professor, Public Policy and Economics, University of Maryland; former Chief Economist, FCC; former economist, DOJ Antitrust Division).] The DOJ Antitrust ... Brennan: Guidance on Enforcement Against “Pure” Vertical Mergers: It’s Complicated
Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 4 (Microsoft)
The DOJ and 20 state AGs sued Microsoft on May 18, 1998 for unlawful maintenance of its monopoly position in the PC market. The government accused the desktop giant of tying its operating system (Windows) and its web browser (Internet Explorer). Microsoft had indeed become dominant in the PC market by the late 1980s: But ... Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 4 (Microsoft)
The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 2 (IBM)
The Department of Justice began its antitrust case against IBM on January 17, 1969. The DOJ sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act, claiming IBM tried to monopolize the market for “general-purpose digital computers.” The case lasted almost thirteen years, ending on January 8, 1982 when Assistant Attorney General William Baxter declared the case to be ... The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 2 (IBM)
The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 1
Big Tech continues to be mired in “a very antitrust situation,” as President Trump put it in 2018. Antitrust advocates have zeroed in on Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon as their primary targets. These advocates justify their proposals by pointing to the trio of antitrust cases against IBM, AT&T, and Microsoft. Elizabeth Warren, in announcing ... The Ghosts of Antitrust Past: Part 1
The State AGs’ Investigation Against Google Needs to Put Consumers First
In mid-November, the 50 state attorneys general (AGs) investigating Google’s advertising practices expanded their antitrust probe to include the company’s search and Android businesses. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the lead on the case, was supportive of the development, but made clear that other states would manage the investigations of search and Android separately. While ... The State AGs’ Investigation Against Google Needs to Put Consumers First
Making Sense of the Google Android Decision (part 3): Where is the Harm?
This is the third in a series of TOTM blog posts discussing the Commission’s recently published Google Android decision (the first post can be found here, and the second here). It draws on research from a soon-to-be published ICLE white paper. (Comparison of Google and Apple’s smartphone business models. Red $ symbols represent money invested; ... Making Sense of the Google Android Decision (part 3): Where is the Harm?
We Should Not Have Our Constitution Redesigned by Antitrust Lawyers
[TOTM: The following is the sixth in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the politicization of antitrust. The entire series of posts is available here.] This post is authored by Kristian Stout, Associate Director at the International Center for Law & Economics. There is a push underway to punish big tech ... We Should Not Have Our Constitution Redesigned by Antitrust Lawyers
Big Ink vs. Bigger Tech
[TOTM: The following is the fifth in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the politicization of antitrust. The entire series of posts is available here.] This post is authored by Ramsi Woodcock, Assistant Professor, College of Law, and Assistant Professor, Department of Management at Gatton College of Business & Economics, University ... Big Ink vs. Bigger Tech
Competition Law as a Swiss Army Knife (Move Fast and Break Things?)
[TOTM: The following is the fourth in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the politicization of antitrust. The entire series of posts is available here.] This post is authored by Valentin Mircea, a Senior Partner at Mircea and Partners Law Firm, Bucharest, Romania. The enforcement of competition rules in the European ... Competition Law as a Swiss Army Knife (Move Fast and Break Things?)
Does Political Power Follow Economic Power?
[TOTM: The following is the third in a series of posts by TOTM guests and authors on the politicization of antitrust. The entire series of posts is available here.] This post is authored by Geoffrey A. Manne, president and founder of the International Center for Law & Economics, and Alec Stapp, Research Fellow at the ... Does Political Power Follow Economic Power?
