That's not an exact precedent by any stretch because MS was a monopoly player and Apple isn't. Many things are not acceptable for monopolies that are for normal market participants. For example if Apple was to integrate Safari more deeply into OS-X it wouldn't introduce the same issues as the IE-integration into windows did.
But it's not necessary for there to be a monopoly position to still be in violation of US antitrust laws.
That's not an exact precedent by any stretch because MS was a monopoly player and Apple isn't. Many things are not acceptable for monopolies that are for normal market participants. For example if Apple was to integrate Safari more deeply into OS-X it wouldn't introduce the same issues as the IE-integration into windows did.
Novell was a joint purchase between MS, EMC, Oracle, and Apple. The concern was that MS and Apple, would lock up the open source patents purchased, rather than free them up and or license them.
After it was brought forth to the courts the parties agreed to allow the patents to stand as before with the same agreements.
That's not an exact precedent by any stretch because MS was a monopoly player and Apple isn't. Many things are not acceptable for monopolies that are for normal market participants. For example if Apple was to integrate Safari more deeply into OS-X it wouldn't introduce the same issues as the IE-integration into windows did.
This is the actual final settlement with the DoJ. If there's a hint of anticompetitive behavior on the part of Rockstar Bidco, I personally don't see how the DoJ would not come to a similar conclusion considering the similar circumstances, at least in the way I've read it.
This is the actual final settlement with the DoJ. If there's a hint of anticompetitive behavior on the part of Rockstar Bidco, I personally don't see how the DoJ would not come to a similar conclusion considering the similar circumstances, at least in the way I've read it.
I think you're missing the key point - this ruling is defending Linux against primarily MS - which holds a virtual monopoly in the desktop space, especially when combined with Apple. Android is the dominant platform in Mobile, there are no equivalent anti-trust considerations.
In the prior link, repeated here, there's no mention of a monopoly position being a key factor in the determination whether anti-competitive behavior violates anti-trust laws:
In the prior link, repeated here, there's no mention of a monopoly position being a key factor in the determination whether anti-competitive behavior violates anti-trust laws:
"Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine....
Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."
The former essentially covers cartels, and price fixing. The latter covers monopolistic behaviour. These two things are what the law means by anti-competitive behaviour, Put very crudely, beating up your competitors in other circumstances is legal, as is screwing your consumers on price.
Now consider what the remedy was in the Novell case. MS was not permitted to acquire the patents and all the patents had to be supplied under GPL and OIN - ie. they had to be supplied in a fashion that could be used by Linux distos. If the concern was price-fixing then the DOJ would have simply enforced a particular licensing fee for the patents, the only reason to require GPL licensing was because the concern was a monopolistic attempt to squash Linux.
'As in other antitrust contexts, however, market power could be illegally acquired or maintained, or, even if lawfully acquired and maintained, would be relevant to the ability of an intellectual property owner to harm competition through unreasonable conduct in connection with such property.'
Essentially, if you have market power (ie. an effective monopoly) you are more constrained in your right to use IP to harm competitors than if you do not.
The judiciary is not a government agency, it is a branch. The judicial branch isn't supposed to 'work with' the executive or the legislative, in fact sometimes quite the opposite.
Yes, but I believe the court in question here is the bankruptcy court responsible for settling Nortel's debts. They certainly don't administer antitrust laws. BTW, it's one word: antitrust. No hyphen required.
Yes, but I believe the court in question here is the bankruptcy court responsible for settling Nortel's debts. They certainly don't administer antitrust laws.
Indeed.
Quote:
BTW, it's one word: antitrust. No hyphen required.
In the US it is, but my copy of the OED has a hyphen.
Comments
That's not an exact precedent by any stretch because MS was a monopoly player and Apple isn't. Many things are not acceptable for monopolies that are for normal market participants. For example if Apple was to integrate Safari more deeply into OS-X it wouldn't introduce the same issues as the IE-integration into windows did.
But it's not necessary for there to be a monopoly position to still be in violation of US antitrust laws.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/ftcdojguidelines.pdf
That's not an exact precedent by any stretch because MS was a monopoly player and Apple isn't. Many things are not acceptable for monopolies that are for normal market participants. For example if Apple was to integrate Safari more deeply into OS-X it wouldn't introduce the same issues as the IE-integration into windows did.
Novell was a joint purchase between MS, EMC, Oracle, and Apple. The concern was that MS and Apple, would lock up the open source patents purchased, rather than free them up and or license them.
After it was brought forth to the courts the parties agreed to allow the patents to stand as before with the same agreements.
That's not an exact precedent by any stretch because MS was a monopoly player and Apple isn't. Many things are not acceptable for monopolies that are for normal market participants. For example if Apple was to integrate Safari more deeply into OS-X it wouldn't introduce the same issues as the IE-integration into windows did.
This is the actual final settlement with the DoJ. If there's a hint of anticompetitive behavior on the part of Rockstar Bidco, I personally don't see how the DoJ would not come to a similar conclusion considering the similar circumstances, at least in the way I've read it.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pr...011/270086.htm
Now he's engaging in self-referential posts?
Now he's engaging in self-referential posts?
Yes, I believe he has about 10 duplicate posts so far, all referring to his great bid buys.
This is the actual final settlement with the DoJ. If there's a hint of anticompetitive behavior on the part of Rockstar Bidco, I personally don't see how the DoJ would not come to a similar conclusion considering the similar circumstances, at least in the way I've read it.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/pr...011/270086.htm
I think you're missing the key point - this ruling is defending Linux against primarily MS - which holds a virtual monopoly in the desktop space, especially when combined with Apple. Android is the dominant platform in Mobile, there are no equivalent anti-trust considerations.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/ftcdojguidelines.pdf
In the prior link, repeated here, there's no mention of a monopoly position being a key factor in the determination whether anti-competitive behavior violates anti-trust laws:
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/ftcdojguidelines.pdf
Look at the basis of US anti-trust law
"Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine....
Section 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...."
The former essentially covers cartels, and price fixing. The latter covers monopolistic behaviour. These two things are what the law means by anti-competitive behaviour, Put very crudely, beating up your competitors in other circumstances is legal, as is screwing your consumers on price.
Now consider what the remedy was in the Novell case. MS was not permitted to acquire the patents and all the patents had to be supplied under GPL and OIN - ie. they had to be supplied in a fashion that could be used by Linux distos. If the concern was price-fixing then the DOJ would have simply enforced a particular licensing fee for the patents, the only reason to require GPL licensing was because the concern was a monopolistic attempt to squash Linux.
or consider this http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/gu...s/0558.htm#t21, section 2.2 includes the following.
'As in other antitrust contexts, however, market power could be illegally acquired or maintained, or, even if lawfully acquired and maintained, would be relevant to the ability of an intellectual property owner to harm competition through unreasonable conduct in connection with such property.'
Essentially, if you have market power (ie. an effective monopoly) you are more constrained in your right to use IP to harm competitors than if you do not.
The judiciary is not a government agency, it is a branch. The judicial branch isn't supposed to 'work with' the executive or the legislative, in fact sometimes quite the opposite.
Yes, but I believe the court in question here is the bankruptcy court responsible for settling Nortel's debts. They certainly don't administer antitrust laws. BTW, it's one word: antitrust. No hyphen required.
Yes, but I believe the court in question here is the bankruptcy court responsible for settling Nortel's debts. They certainly don't administer antitrust laws.
Indeed.
BTW, it's one word: antitrust. No hyphen required.
In the US it is, but my copy of the OED has a hyphen.