and Eric? Same as it ever was, I wouldn't expect you to follow the links.
That's better context. Thanks for sharing. I now understand that you don't mean that a change in enforcement philosophy with the AG is relevant, but that the AG is arguing that current case law supports an interpretation that a FRAND violation doesn't fall under anti-trust law, but rather contract law.
On a side note, His speech stated very clearly some basic tenets of anti-trust law that everyone should read as there is incredible ignorance about what is intended to be covered as "unfair" competition. So often people talk about some practice, e.g., the App store, as though there is some obligation for Apple and other companies to be "fair" in the general sense of the word. This one portion of his speech, there are others, squarely smacks that down.
I"n market economies, every rational business wants to exclude and defeat its competitors, and indeed antitrust law encourages fierce competition among companies aiming for as high a market share as they can achieve. That is why courts applying Section 2 are careful not to condemn “exclusionary” conduct that is driven by competition on the merits such as innovation. Most obviously, legitimate competition on the merits can be “exclusionary” in the sense that consumers choose a superior product or service. That conduct does not violate Section 2. By comparison, conduct that “excludes” a competitor by hindering its ability to offer a superior product or service, without offering any benefit to competition, likely would constitute a Section 2 violation."
Comments
https://www.scribd.com/document/397134753/19-01-08-FTC-Trial-Brief-After-Partial-Unsealing#from_embed
On a side note, His speech stated very clearly some basic tenets of anti-trust law that everyone should read as there is incredible ignorance about what is intended to be covered as "unfair" competition. So often people talk about some practice, e.g., the App store, as though there is some obligation for Apple and other companies to be "fair" in the general sense of the word. This one portion of his speech, there are others, squarely smacks that down.
I"n market economies, every rational business wants to exclude and defeat its competitors, and indeed antitrust law encourages fierce competition among companies aiming for as high a market share as they can achieve. That is why courts applying Section 2 are careful not to condemn “exclusionary” conduct that is driven by competition on the merits such as innovation. Most obviously, legitimate competition on the merits can be “exclusionary” in the sense that consumers choose a superior product or service. That conduct does not violate Section 2. By comparison, conduct that “excludes” a competitor by hindering its ability to offer a superior product or service, without offering any benefit to competition, likely would constitute a Section 2 violation."