DOCSLIB.ORG

Refusal to License Intellectual Property Rights As an Abuse Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Refusal to License Intellectual Property Rights As an Abuse Of Vol. 2 of 2 Refusal to License Intellectual Property Rights as an Abuse of Dominance under EU Competition Law: What is the Best Solution for Legal Certainty from a Rule of Law Perspective? By Marwa Marwan Shafiq Narmiq A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire October 2019 The law is stated as at 30th November 2018 and all the internet sources mentioned in the thesis were accessible as at end of November 2018. © Marwa Narmiq, 2018 1 LIST OF CASES WTO REPORT WTO Panel Report, Argentina: Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hide and the Import of Finished (Argentina-Hide and Leather)- Panel Report (February 2001) WT/DS155/R WTO AB Reports, EC: Export Subsidies on Sugar (28 April 2005) WT/DS265/266/283/AB/R WTO AB Reports, EC: Pipe Fittings (22 July 2003) WT/DS/219/AB/R WTO AB Reports, EC: Sardines (26 September 2002) WT/DS231/AB/R WTO Panel Report, Japan: Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper (Japan-Film)- Panel Report (April 1998) WT/DS44/R WTO AB Reports, Korea: Beef (11 December 2000) WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R WTO AB Reports Mexico: Corn Syrup (22 October 2001) WT/DS132/AB/RW WTO Panel Report, Mexico: Telecoms (2 April 2004) WT/DS204/R WTO AB Reports Thailand: H-Beams (12 March 2001) WT/DS122/AB/R 2 WTO AB Reports, United States: Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline-Report of the Appellate Body (29 April 1996) AB-19996-1 and WT/DS2/AB/R WTO AB Reports US: Cotton Yarn (8 October 2001) WT/DS192/AB/R WTO AB Reports, US: FSC (24 February 2000) WT/DS108/AB/R WTO AB Reports, US: Hot Rolled Steel (24 July 2001) WT/DS184/AB/R WTO AB Reports, US: Lamb (1 May 2001) WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R WTO AB Reports, U.S: Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 (2 January 2002) WT/DS176/AB/R EU CASES AstraZeneca AB (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3) [2005] OJ L332/24 Case T-342/99, Airtours v Commission [2002] 5 C.M.L.R 7 Case C-62/86 AKZO v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1991:286 Case C- 245/02 Anheuser-Busch v. Budejovicky Budvar [2004] ECR I-10989 Case T-321/05 AstraZeneca AB v European Commission [2010] EU: T:2010:266 Case C- 457-10 AstraZeneca AB v European Commission [2012] EU:C: 2012:770 Case T-219/99 British Airways v Commission [2003], CFI II 5925 3 Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P Campagnie Maritime Belge Transports v. Commission [2000] 4 C.M.L.R 1076 Case C-61/94, Commission v. Germany [1996] ECLI:EU:C:1996:313 Case C-53/87 Consorzio Italiano della Componentistica di Ricambio per Autoveicoli v Regie Nationale des Usines Renault [1988] E.C.R. 6039 Case 6/72 Cont’l Can Co. v. Comm’n (Continental Can) [1973] E.C.R. 215 Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 585 Case C-310/01 Electric v Commission [2003] 4 C.M.L.R 17 Case C-266/11 Expedia Inc v Authorite de la concurrence [2013] Bus. L.R. 705 Case COMP/M.2220 General Electric v Honeywell [2001] ECR Case 8/55 FEDERCHAR v High Authority [1954] 55 ECR 245 Case 104/81 Hauptzollomt Mainz v Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641 Case C-85/76 Hoffman-La Roche v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1979:36 Case 85/76 Hoffman La-Roche & Co. AG v. Comm’n (Hoffman La-Roche) [1979] E.C.R. 461 Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corp EU:C:2015: 477, [2015] Bus. L.R. 1261 4 Case C-170/13 Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corp, ZTE Duetschland GmbH (Re Smartphone Standard Essential Patents) [2015] C.M.L.R 14 Case C-170/1 Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v ZTE Corp. [2016] R.P.C. 4 Case 6/60 Humblet v. Belgium [1960] ECR 559 Case 26/62 Van Gen den Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 1 Case C-418/01 IMS Health v NDC Health [2004] ECR I-5039 Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi et al v. Council and Commission [2008] ECLI:EU:2008:461 Case C-52/07 Kanal 5 and TV 4, ECLI:EU:C:2008:70 Case C-52/09 Konkurrensverket v. TeliaSonera Sverige [2011] 4 C.M.L.R 18 Case C-109/03 KPN Telecom BV v Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit [2004] E.C.R. I-11273 Case C-52/09 Konkurrensverkt v TeliaSnonera Sverige AB [2011] ECR I-000; [2011] 4 CMLR 982 Case T-203/01 Michelin v Commission [2003] CFI II-4083 Case T-01/04, Microsoft Corp. v EC [2006] ECR II-1491 Case T-201/04 Microsoft Corp v Commission [2007] ECR II-3601 (GC) Case T-167/08 Microsoft Corp v European Commission [2012] General Court 5 C- 322/81 Neverlansche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission [1985] 1 C.M.L.R 282 Case 322/81 NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission [1983] ECR 3461 Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs-und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG [1998] E.C.R I-7791 Case C-241/91 P Radio Telefic Eireann v Commission (Magill) [1995] ECR I-743 Joined Cases C-300/98 & C-392/98 Parfums Christian Dior SA v. TUK Consultancy BV and Assco Geruste GmbH and Rob van Dijk v. Wilhelm Layker GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV [2000] ECR I-11307 Case C-209/10 Post Denmark A/S v Konkurrenceradet [2012] 4 C.M.L.R 23 Case T-119/09 Protégé International v Commission [2012] Case T-184/01 R IMS Health Inc v Commission [2001] ECR II-3193 Case C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P Radio Telefis Eirann (RTE) and Independent Telivision Publication Ltd (ITP) v Commission [1995] ECR I-743 Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs-und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co KG [1998] E.C.R I-7791 Case AT.39740 Re Google Search (Shopping) [2018] 4 CMLR 12 C-284/95, Safety Hi-Tec Srl v S & T Srl [1998] ECR I-4301 6 Case C-89/99, Schieving-Nijstad and Others v. Robert Groeneveld [2001] ECR I-5851 Case C-52/09 TeliaSonera Sverige, ECLI:EU:C:2011:83 Case T-5/02, Tetra Laval v Commission [2002] 5 C.M.L.R. 29 Joined Cases C-447 and 448/05 Thomson Multimedia and Vestel France v Administration des Douanes [2007] ECR I- 2049 Case T-504/93 Tiércé Ladbroke v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1997:84. Case C-192/73, Van Zuylen frères v Hag AG [1974] ECLI:EU:C:1974:72 Case 238/87 Volvo AB v Erik Veng (UK) Ltd [1989] C.M.L.R 122 Case 27/76 United Brands Co. & United Brands Cont’l v. Comm’n (United Brands) [1978] E.C.R. 207 Magill (RTE and Others v European Commission) [1995] ECR I 743, 823 Microsoft Case (Case COMP/C-3/37.792) [2004] C (2004)900 final NDC Health v IMS Health: Interim measures (Case COMP D3/38.044) [2003] O.J. 2003, L 268/69 Promedia v Commission [1998] E.C.R. II-2941 7 NATIONAL CASES Archos SA v Royal Philips NV [2017] Rechtbank The Hague C/09/505587 Atari Games Corp.v Nintendo of America Inc, [1990] F, 2d. 1572 (Fed. Cir.) British Leyland Motor Corporation Ltd v TI Silencers Ltd [1981] 2 CMLR 75 Brown v Duchesne (1856) 60 U.S. 183 Brownie Wireless Co. Ltd.’s Application [1929] 46 R.P.C. Cammeyer v Newton (1876) 94 U.S. 225 Colborne Enginerring Co. Ltd’s Application [1955] 72 R.P.C. 169 Cooperative Union Ltd’s and Others’ Application [1933] 50 R.P.C. 164 Crozier v Fried Krupp (1912) 224 U.S. 290 CSU, L.L.C v Xerox Corp. [2000] 203 F.3d 1326 Data Gen. Corp. v Grumman Sys. Support Corp. [1994] 36 F.3d 1147 Dawson Chemical Co. v Rohm & Haas [1980] 448 US 175 8 G Electronics v Sony, District Court of The Hague [2011], Case KG ZA 11–269 Intel Corporation v Via Technologies Inc and Elitegroup Computer Systems [2002] EWCA Civ 1905 Illinois Tool Works Inc. and others Petitioners v Independent ink, Inc [2006] 547 U.S. 28 Joint cases No. 316533/HA ZA 08-2522 and 316535/HA ZA 08-2524 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v SK Kassetten GmbH & co. KG Case KZR 39/06 Orange-Book-Standard [2009] 180 BGHZ 312 Joint Cases 400367/HA ZA 11–2212, 400376/HA ZA 11–2213 and 400385/HA ZA 11– 2215 Samsung v Apple [2012] District Court of The Hague Kamborian’s Patent [1961] R.P.C. 403 Saint Lawrence v Deutsche Telekom [2015] Mannheim Regional Court 2 O 106/14 Sivel v Haier [2015] LG Düsseldorf 4a O 144/14 Seymour v Osborne (1870) 78 U.S. 516 Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 2988 (Pat) [2017] R.P.C 19 Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 2988 (Chancery Division Pat) [2018] 4 C.M.L.R 17 9 United States v Dubilier Condenser Corp., [1933] 289 U.S. 178 United States v Microsoft [2002] F. Supp. 2d 144 10 LIST OF TREATIES, LEGISLATION AND LAW INTERNATIONAL Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 1995 The Berne Convention for the Protection of literary and Artistic Works (1886) Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, revision, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Including Trade in Counterfeit Goods (1990) MTN.TNC/W/35/Rev.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Google—Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Why the Tech Giant Is a “Bad” Monopoly
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 71 Issue 3 Article 7 4-2020 Google—Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Why the Tech Giant Is a “Bad” Monopoly Alicia Ginsberg Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alicia Ginsberg, Google—Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Why the Tech Giant Is a “Bad” Monopoly, 71 HASTINGS L.J. 783 (2020). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol71/iss3/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notes Google—Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200: Why the Tech Giant Is a “Bad” Monopoly † ALICIA GINSBERG Congress enacted the Sherman Act in 1890 to promote competition and creativity in the marketplace. The Sherman Act prohibits agreements that restrain trade and lays out rules regarding monopoly power. This Note explores three distinct theories under which Google, one of the most successful technology companies in the world, could be found to have violated the Sherman Act. Specifically, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Google “ties” its products together and forces mobile device manufacturers to sign exclusive dealing agreements preventing them from purchasing products from Google’s competitors. Further, Google’s systematic obstruction of competing Android operating systems is a form of anticompetitive conduct in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Google's Transformation from Gateway To
    GOOGLE’S TRANSFORMATION FROM GATEWAY TO GATEKEEPER: HOW GOOGLE’S EXCLUSIONARY AND ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT RESTRICTS INNOVATION AND DECEIVES CONSUMERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Approximately 240 million people in the United States regularly use the Internet, and last year their activity generated nearly $170 billion in commerce – making the Internet a linchpin of our economy, our society, and of everyday life. Maintaining a competitive environment in which investment and innovation can thrive on the Internet therefore should be a core public policy goal. Yet today, anticompetitive actions of the monopolist search engine, Google, put that goal at serious risk. Search engines are among the most critical actors on the Internet. With more than one trillion webpages on the Internet and more appearing every day, search is the principal means by which consumers find online businesses and online businesses find consumers amidst an otherwise crowded and confusing landscape. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that as of May 2011, 92% of adults online use search engines to find information on the Internet. In July 2011 alone, there were over 17.1 billion search queries conducted in the United States, up 3% from the prior month. Google controlled at least seven out of every ten of those searches. As antitrust authorities and courts here in the U.S. and abroad have repeatedly concluded, Google has market power in search, giving this single company unprecedented power over what users find, who is found, and what businesses must pay to be found on the Internet. Having gained a monopoly in Internet search and search advertising, Google also has come to control nearly 97% of the fast-growing mobile search market.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairness-Aware Machine Learning an Extensive Overview
    Fairness-Aware Machine Learning An Extensive Overview Jannik Dunkelau( ) and Michael Leuschel Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf Universitätsstraße 1 · 40225 Düsseldorf [email protected] [email protected] Abstract. We provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in fairness- aware machine learning and examine a wide variety of research articles in the area. We survey different fairness notions, algorithms for pre-, in-, and post-processing of the data and models, and provide an overview of available frameworks. Keywords: Fairness · Algorithmic Fairness · Machine Learning · Survey Version Date Modifications 00 05.07.2019 Create repository 01 17.10.2019 First version of survey Table of Contents 1 Introduction . .2 1.1 Legal Motivation . .3 1.2 Types and Causes of Discrimination . .4 1.3 Causes for Machine Bias . .6 2 Related Work . .7 3 Necessary Nomenclature . .9 3.1 Machine Learning Nomenclature . .9 3.2 Fairness Nomenclature . 11 4 Mathematical Notation . 12 5 Notions of Fairness . 13 5.1 Unawareness . 14 5.2 Group fairness . 14 5.3 Predictive Parity . 16 5.4 Calibration . 19 5.5 Individual Fairness . 20 5.6 Preference-Based Fairness . 21 5.7 Causality . 22 5.8 Note on the Selection of Fairness Metrics . 23 6 Pre-Processing: Discrimination-free Training Data . 24 2 J. Dunkelau et al. 6.1 Relabelling . 24 6.2 Resampling . 25 6.3 Fair Representations . 26 6.4 Further Algorithms . 27 7 In-Processing: Discrimination-aware Learners . 28 7.1 Adjusted Learning Algorithms . 28 7.2 Adapted Loss Function . 29 7.3 Adversarial Approaches . 31 7.4 Optimisation Subject to Fairness Constraints .
    [Show full text]
  • Search, Antitrust, and the Economics of the Control of User Data
    Search, Antitrust, and the Economics of the Control of User Data Nathan Newmant This Article argues for reorienting many antitrust investigations-and more generally regulatory approaches-tofocus on how control of personal data by corporations can entrench monopoly power in an economy shaped increasingly by the power of "big data." What is largely missed in analyses defending Google from antitrust action is how Google's ever expanding control of user personal data and its critical value to online advertisers creates an insurmountable barrierto entry for new competition. Moreover, Google did not just inherit that business advantage through its innovation in search engine technology. Rather, Google has aggressively expanded its control of user data both by moving into new product sectors to collect additionaluser data and by invading users'privacy. Introduction: The Undermining of Competition in Online Markets...............402 A. How Google Uses Controlof User Information to Strengthen its Monopoly........... ................... ............. 405 B. The Antitrust Case Against Google ........................... 407 C. Remedies and the Argumentfor Aggressive and Earlier Regulatory Intervention.......................... 411 I. How Google Dominates the Search Advertising Market.. ............. 412 A. How the Search Advertising Market Works ......... ........ 413 B. Measuring Google's Dominance.....................414 C. Why Search Advertising is the Relevant Marketfor Antitrust Analysis ......................................... 416 D. Google's
    [Show full text]
  • Alford Final Proof
    Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better––Except in Big Tech?: Antitrust’s New Inhospitality Tradition Elyse Dorsey* Anything you can do, I can do better I can do anything better than you No, you can’t Yes, I can No, you can’t. Yes, I can! Yes, I can!1 INTRODUCTION Competition is deeply woven into the fabric of our American heritage. No small amount of competitive spirit helped drive the Founders’ efforts to design and to establish “a more perfect Union”2—a unique political structure intended to improve upon what the world had observed to date. That competitive spirit drove us to push and to expand boundaries of all sorts over the last (nearly) 250 years. It manifests in scientific, mathematic, medical, and technological developments and other academic endeavors; in ubiquitous athletic programs; and even in our art and entertainment, including in the lyrics to Broadway musicals. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that competition has also been a foundational principle guiding the American economy since its inception.3 Competition has been the primary code by which firms live and die, succeed and fail, win and lose. This code has led directly to tremendous achievements that revolutionized not only our country, but the world— such as the Ford assembly line, which transformed an industry; the advent * Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. I would like to thank John Yun, Roger Alford, Thom Lambert, Jessica Dutra, Kristian Stout and Josh Wright for valuable discussion on these (and many other) issues. I would also like to thank the Kansas Law Review Board for hosting this symposium and for providing an invaluable opportunity to discuss these important issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Telling Timeline of Google Guardian's Government Influence
    10/25/2017 Scott Cleland, Precursor LLC Telling Timeline of Google Guardian’s Government Influence Note: Bolded entire sections spotlight likely improper Google government influence. Top Takeaways 1. Neutralization of Google’s Federal Law Enforcement Risks in Antitrust, IP, & Privacy 2. Extension of Google’s Monopoly to Android & the Mobile Ecosystem 3. Elimination of Much Direct Competition to Google 4. Winner-take-all is consumer-down-fall 2008 1. DOJ blocks Google-Yahoo Ad Agreement with threat of monopolization case against Google: November 5, 2008, the W. Bush DOJ threatened a Sherman Section 1 & 2 antitrust case against Google to block the proposed Google-Yahoo ad agreement. Importantly, the DOJ “concluded that Google and Yahoo would have become collaborators rather than competitors… materially reducing important competitive rivalry between the two companies.” [Bold added.] “The Department's investigation revealed that Internet search advertising and Internet search syndication are each relevant antitrust markets and that Google is by far the largest provider of such services, with shares of more than 70 percent in both markets. Yahoo! is by far Google's most significant competitor in both markets, with combined market shares of 90 percent and 95 percent in the search advertising and search syndication markets, respectively.” 2009 2. FTC urged Google CEO Schmidt to resign from Apple’s Board as anticompetitive: August 3, 2009, the FTC forced Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt off Apple’s board as an anti-competitive opportunity for collusion because “because Google and Apple increasingly compete with each other” (i.e. via iPhone and Android smartphone competition). 2010 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Definition in the Google Android Case
    http://lib.ulg.ac.be http://matheo.ulg.ac.be Market Definition in the Google Android Case Auteur : Lamesch, Joé Promoteur(s) : Gautier, Axel Faculté : HEC-Ecole de gestion de l'ULg Diplôme : Master en sciences économiques, orientation générale, à finalité spécialisée en Economic Analysis and Public Governance Année académique : 2015-2016 URI/URL : http://hdl.handle.net/2268.2/1812 Avertissement à l'attention des usagers : Tous les documents placés en accès ouvert sur le site le site MatheO sont protégés par le droit d'auteur. Conformément aux principes énoncés par la "Budapest Open Access Initiative"(BOAI, 2002), l'utilisateur du site peut lire, télécharger, copier, transmettre, imprimer, chercher ou faire un lien vers le texte intégral de ces documents, les disséquer pour les indexer, s'en servir de données pour un logiciel, ou s'en servir à toute autre fin légale (ou prévue par la réglementation relative au droit d'auteur). Toute utilisation du document à des fins commerciales est strictement interdite. Par ailleurs, l'utilisateur s'engage à respecter les droits moraux de l'auteur, principalement le droit à l'intégrité de l'oeuvre et le droit de paternité et ce dans toute utilisation que l'utilisateur entreprend. Ainsi, à titre d'exemple, lorsqu'il reproduira un document par extrait ou dans son intégralité, l'utilisateur citera de manière complète les sources telles que mentionnées ci-dessus. Toute utilisation non explicitement autorisée ci-avant (telle que par exemple, la modification du document ou son résumé) nécessite l'autorisation préalable et expresse des auteurs ou de leurs ayants droit.
    [Show full text]
  • Le Mermoz News …
    Retrouvez très vite en dernière page notre rubrique « Pause INFO’MATIQUE : détente », qui saura vous faire patienter jusqu’aux vacances, qui . Le dernier smartphone à la mode débutent vendredi 26 avril. Google : la fin ? LE MERMOZ NEWS … … SURVOLE L’INFO ! NUMERO 2 - Mail du collège : http://www.clg-mermoz-savigny.ac-versailles.fr - E-sidoc (CDI) : http://0910716j.esidoc.fr - 19 avril 2013 Les vacances de printemps arrivent FIL’ACTU’ et nous tenions à vous divertir un Le mariage pour tous ? peu avec ce nouveau numéro du Deux camps s’opposent ! Mermoz News, spécial Vacances. « HANAMI » : découvrez la fête des fleurs L’école ouverte : c’est quoi ? Deux élèves témoignent ACTU’MODE Ce mois-ci, vous verrez que la mode s’intéresse à vos petits « petons » : comme on dit, « tout le monde peut trouver chaussure à son pied » Editorial C'est enfin le printemps. Il faisait froid et triste, on gardait les manteaux et les bonnets. Même le INSOLITE Mermoz News hibernait durant cette période : les élèves de troisième étaient en stage en entreprise, puis il y a eu les vacances, l'école ouverte... plein d'autres choses qui nous ont occupés. Les blagues des Enfin nous pouvons vous présenter notre dernier numéro, que vous pourrez emporter avec vous « Carambar » sont pendant les prochaines vacances : des infos, des photos, du sport, de l'informatique, et les menacées : info ou intox ? habituelles rubriques jeux et horoscope, concoctés par l'équipe du journal. Fin mars, durant la Semaine de la presse, l'équipe a d'ailleurs participé avec enthousiasme à un Et aussi : concours de Unes.
    [Show full text]
  • Powrót Do Idei Sprzed Lat: Idea Swobodnego Przepływu Informacji
    Uniwersytet Warszawski Wydział Dziennikarstwa i Nauk Politycznych mgr Michał Olędzki Udział wyszukiwarek internetowych w realizacji idei swobodnego przepływu informacji. Analiza działalności wyszukiwarki Google Rozprawa doktorska napisana pod kierunkiem prof. dr. hab. Wiesława Władyki Warszawa 2016 Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 3.0 Polska (CC-BY) Spis treści Wprowadzenie ..................................................................................................................... 4 Rozdział 1. Idea swobodnego przepływu informacji ...................................................... 15 1.1. Historia koncepcji swobodnego przepływu informacji .............................................. 15 1.1.1. Początki idei swobodnego przepływu informacji .......................................... 17 1.1.2. Idea zrównoważonego przepływu informacji – kontrpropozycja krajów Trzeciego Świata i państw bloku sowieckiego .............................................. 19 1.1.3. Współczesna koncepcja swobodnego przepływu informacji ........................ 22 1.2. Swobodny przepływ informacji w dobie Internetu .................................................... 28 1.2.1. Formy realizacji idei swobodnego przepływu informacji w dobie Internetu 35 1.2.2. Ruchy społeczne na rzecz realizowania idei swobodnego przepływu informacji na świecie ..................................................................................... 41 1.2.3. Przeszkody w realizacji idei swobodnego przepływu informacji na świecie za pomocą
    [Show full text]
  • Forget Remedies – Fairsearch Doesn’T Even Have A
    Forget remedies – FairSearch doesn’t even have a valid statement of harm in its Google antitrust criticism November 20, 2012 Geoffrey A. Manne After more than a year of complaining about Google and being met with responses from me (see also here, here, here, here, and here, among others) and many others that these complaints have yet to offer up a rigorous theory of antitrust injury — let alone any evidence — FairSearch yesterday offered up its preferred remedies aimed at addressing, in its own words, “the fundamental conflict of interest driving Google’s incentive and ability to engage in anti-competitive conduct. [by putting an] end [to] Google’s preferencing of its own products ahead of natural search results.” Nothing in the post addresses the weakness of the organization’s underlying claims, and its proposed remedies would be damaging to consumers. FairSearch’s first and core “abuse” is “[d]iscriminatory treatment favoring Google’s own vertical products in a manner that may harm competing vertical products.” To address this it proposes prohibiting Google from preferencing its own content in search results and suggests as additional, “structural remedies” “[r]equiring Google to license data” and “[r]equiring Google to divest its vertical products that have benefited from Google’s abuses.” Tom Barnett, former AAG for antitrust, counsel to FairSearch member Expedia, and FairSearch’s de facto spokesman should be ashamed to be associated with claims and proposals like these. He better than many others knows that harm to competitors is not the issue under US antitrust laws. Rather, US antitrust law requires a demonstration that consumers — not just rivals — will be harmed by a challenged practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadmap for a Monopolization Case Against Google Regarding the Search Market
    Roadmap for a Monopolization Case Against Google Regarding the Search Market June 2020 Fiona M. Scott Morton David C. Dinielli Biographies Fiona M. Scott Morton is the Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics at the Yale University School of Management (SOM) where she has been on the faculty since 1999. Her area of academic research is industrial organization, with a focus on empirical studies of competition. The focus of her current research is competition in healthcare markets and the economics of antitrust. From 2011-12 Professor Scott Morton served as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis (Chief Economist) at the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, where she helped enforce the nation’s antitrust laws. At Yale SOM she teaches courses in the area of competitive strategy and antitrust economics. She served as Associate Dean from 2007-10 and has won the School’s teaching award three times. She founded and directs the Thurman Arnold Project at Yale, a vehicle to provide more antitrust programming and policy projects to Yale students. Professor Scott Morton has a BA from Yale and a PhD from MIT, both in Economics. She is a frequent speaker at seminars and conferences across the United States Fiona M. Scott Morton and Europe. Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics Yale University School of Management As a senior advisor with the beneficial technology team at Omidyar Network, David is focused on developing a robust analytic framework for antitrust litigation and regulation designed to reduce the competitive, democratic, and other harms caused by big tech companies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Market Realities That Undermined the FTC's Antitrust Case Against
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Occasional Paper Series — July 2013 * The Market Realities that Undermined the FTC’s Antitrust Case Against Google By Geoffrey A. Manne and William Rinehart * The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Occasional Paper Series is an online-only component intended to showcase thoughtful and innovative writings on a wide variety of subjects related to the law and technology field. These pieces are reformatted for consistency, but otherwise undergo no editing or cite-checking by the members of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology . Harvard Journal of Law & Technology THE MARKET REALITIES THAT UNDERMINED THE FTC’S ANTITRUST CASE AGAINST GOOGLE Geoffrey A. Manne and William Rinehart * TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 II. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR ANTICOMPETITIVE FORECLOSURE AND ITS APPLICATION TO GOOGLE ........................... 2 III. GOOGLE ’S RELEVANT MARKET ..................................................... 7 IV. MARKET DEFINITION FOR ADVERTISERS ....................................... 9 V. GOOGLE ’S PRODUCT INNOVATION AND ANTITRUST ..................... 11 VI. THE DIFFICULTIES OF ANTITRUST ON THE INTERNET ................... 14 VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 17 I. INTRODUCTION The FTC completed its antitrust investigation of Google early this year and, finding no evidence of antitrust violations, decided not to bring an enforcement action against the
    [Show full text]