Staples, HP Sued For Not Selling HP Compatible Ink

from the antitrust? dept

Back in February, we talked about how HP was pressuring retailers not to stock generic brand inkjet printer ink cartridge refills, though it appeared that Staples was the only company who agreed to the deal. This wasn't surprising -- as the margins on printer ink for companies like HP are astronomical, and the company has been doing everything it can possibly think of to stop anyone from selling competitive ink, including filing bogus patent lawsuits. It took some time, but someone is now trying to file a class action lawsuit against HP for the deal it made with Staples, who is also included. The lawsuit claims that the deal is an antitrust violation, but that seems like a huge stretch. While we agree that it's somewhat sleazy, it's hard to see how this is a serious antitrust violation. There are plenty of places, online and off, where you can buy offbrand ink cartridges (or have existing cartridges refilled). If Staples wants to cede all that business to others, that's its (bad) decision. However, no one is forcing people to shop at Staples, and customers should do a little research before realizing that there are much better options than what Staples is stocking on its shelves.

Filed Under: antitrust, printer ink
Companies: hp, staples

Antitrust Law Is Supposed To Protect Consumers, Not Competitors

from the blast-from-the-past dept

Opera has filed a complaint in Europe accusing Microsoft of violating antitrust laws there. The arguments in this complaint appear to be very similar to the arguments in the original antitrust case against Microsoft a decade ago, which some states are still pushing here in the United States. I don't know much about European antitrust law, but it's a little hard to take Opera's policy argument seriously. Mozilla has reported that Firefox's market share is 28 percent in Europe, a number that has been growing steadily for most of this decade. And Apple recently joined the fray by launching a Windows version of its Safari browser. There is, in short, no shortage of competition in the browser market, and that's been reflected in the steady erosion of Microsoft's market share. Now, it is true that the situation is somewhat unfair to Opera. Microsoft's ability to bundle Internet explorer with Windows obviously gives it a big advantage (as does Apple's ability to bundle Safari with Macs and iPhones). But antitrust law was never designed to make the market "fair" in this sense, and as Firefox demonstrates, those disadvantages are far from insurmountable. Antitrust law is about protecting consumers, not competitors. As far as I can see, there's nothing stopping consumers who are dissatisfied with Internet Explorer from downloading Firefox, Safari, or Opera. Indeed, a quarter of European Internet users have done just that. Perhaps the money Opera is currently spending on lawyers would be better spent on figuring out why Mozilla has been so much more successful than Opera at attracting new users.

Filed Under: antitrust, europe, ie
Companies: microsoft, opera

Judge Dismisses LimeWire's Charges Of Antitrust Violations Against RIAA

from the more-evidence-please dept

After being sued by the RIAA, file sharing app provider LimeWire fought back. Beyond claiming that it didn't violate copyright laws (by not "inducing" infringement), the company also countersued, claiming that the RIAA had violated antitrust laws in trying to illegally compete with LimeWire and other file sharing systems. This claim always seemed like a stretch, and apparently a judge agreed, dismissing the antitrust claims, noting that LimeWire failed to provide enough evidence to back up the claim. While it would have been nice to see the RIAA run into trouble on this point, it's true that LimeWire's evidence wasn't particularly strong, so this shouldn't come as a surprise or even be seen as much of a setback. It's just a case where LimeWire reached too far in its lawsuit and a judge quickly saw that.

Filed Under: antitrust, collusion, file sharing, record labels
Companies: limewire, riaa

Microsoft Gives In On Antitrust Claims; Will It Make A Difference?

from the probably-not dept

Just a week after dropping an appeal on an antitrust ruling in South Korea, Microsoft has now agreed to the EU's antitrust ruling. This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, as Microsoft's appeal had already been smacked down by the EU courts. While this may appear to be something of a shift from Microsoft's more common willingness to fight these sorts of things to the end, it really shouldn't be that surprising. At some point, the company had to realize that things weren't going to get any better. And, at the same time, Microsoft had really held out for long enough on many of these issues. The remedies (beyond the fines) in the EU don't appear to be all that onerous and, if anything, should actually make Microsoft's operating system somewhat more attractive to purchasers in Europe, as it could make it easier for other applications to work well on the Microsoft platform. So, while some in the press are saying that Microsoft "blinked," it seems more accurate to say that it was able to drag the process out for long enough to serve its own purposes.

Filed Under: antitrust, eu, korea
Companies: microsoft

Netflix Patent Antitrust Case Thrown Out, Judge Orders Lawyers To Alert The Press

from the legal-oddities dept

Back in May we told you about a class action lawsuit that was being filed against Netflix, claiming that the company violated antitrust law by fraudulently obtaining the patents it was using to sue Blockbuster. This seemed like a really odd argument, and one unlikely to succeed. By definition, patents are monopoly rights which are granted by the government -- so it's difficult to see how they can violate antitrust law. Also, as we noted when the original suit was filed, these types of class action lawsuits rarely do much good (though, they do tend to make lawyers a lot wealthier). A little over a month after this lawsuit was filed, Netflix and Blockbuster decided to settle their patent dispute, at which point we wondered what would happen to the antitrust class action. Now we know. It's about to be dismissed. However, the judge apparently is worried that due to the original press coverage of the case (from folks like yours truly), potential members of the class may have held back filing other actions against Netflix -- and therefore has demanded that the lawyers get the same level of press coverage as the first time. Of course, the news that such an action has been dismissed isn't quite as newsworthy as the original filing (which was newsworthy for being an odd way to fight bad patents). Either way, the anonymous lawyer who tipped me off to the original case, has now emailed me again with the order demanding similar press coverage (to be clear: it's the order demanding similar press coverage, not the lawyer, who said rather little in the email). I'll post it here not because the dismissal of the case is interesting, but the idea that the judge believes the plaintiffs can "make sure that the end of these actions gets as much attention as their start." At this point it's unclear if the dismissal is because of the settlement (quite likely) or because it's just not a very good idea to claim patents violate antitrust law. As much as our patent law and patent system are screwed up these days, allowing people to challenge patents on the basis of antitrust class action lawsuits seems likely to only make things worse.

Filed Under: antitrust, class action, patents
Companies: blockbuster, netflix

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over iBricking -- Violation Of Antitrust Law?

from the always-gotta-sue dept

While the last class action lawsuit over the iPhone was pretty ridiculous -- claiming that the rapid price drop was illegal -- this latest one may have a bit more substance behind it. One of the victims of the infamous iPhone iBricking update has now filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, claiming that the iBricking action was a violation of California law. The specific arguments are a bit complex, but basically, the guy is claiming that in locking the handset to one carrier, Apple violated sections of the Cartwright Act, which is designed to prevent companies from creating artificial market barriers on products they sell in order to boost the price. On top of that, the lawsuit notes that unlocking a phone for use on other networks is perfectly legal under last year's DMCA exemptions. Therefore, to then brick the iPhones that were unlocked violates the California law, saying that it's illegal to take actions that "substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly." It may be a bit of a stretch to say that applies in this case, and Apple can simply plead (reasonably) that the iBricking was not on purpose, and that the company has no requirement to support unlocked handsets -- but if this case actually does get some traction, Apple may need to be a bit more careful in future firmware updates.

Filed Under: antitrust, class action, iphone, unlocking
Companies: apple

Ever Wonder How These Astroturf 'Coalitions' Are Formed?

from the lobbyists-and-shills-and-pr,-oh-my! dept

By now we've all seen the various fake "astroturf" PR/lobbying efforts out there, talking up some particular position, which is almost always created and funded by a company that benefits from having the public (or, more often, politicians) support that position. Most people recognize that they're just false fronts, but the details are often hidden. However, in at least one case, the details have been leaking out. Microsoft, who isn't in much of a position to call "antitrust" violations on others, is trying to stop Google from being able to acquire DoubleClick. In order to get support in blocking the deal, Microsoft apparently had a big PR firm try to put together one of these fake "coalitions" using the name "Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces" (gotta love the names of all of these coalitions), which appears to be designed solely to release reports critical of Google practices. The problem, though, is that the email the PR firm used to "recruit" members to join this group has leaked out and is getting press attention. Again, there's nothing particularly new in all of this. There are countless such organizations, but it's rare to get the details on how one was brought together. In this case, the email being sent to potential participants urges them to complain about Google's practices to politicians, regulators and the media. Even though Microsoft put the group together, apparently the PR firm did not reveal that. This won't change much, of course, and we can probably still expect to see reports coming out from the "Initiative for Competitive Online Marketplaces," but it would be nice to see the press act at least a little skeptical of any conclusions drawn from those reports.

Filed Under: antitrust, lobbying

Small Companies Look To Move Antitrust Suits To Europe

from the come-to-Europe-for-the-history,-stay-for-the-regulatory-smackdowns dept

Following the EU's decision to smack down Microsoft for antitrust violation, we had already noted how this could mean trouble for other successful tech companies. Of course, that just means it's an opportunity for less successful companies. The Financial Times notes that small companies that have been unable to get much traction in their attempts to brand their bigger, more established competitors as monopolists, may now try to move those cases to Europe, where they hope to receive more favorable rulings. That seems a bit extreme and, one would hope, unlikely to succeed in most cases. Still, we have seen more questionable IPOs moving to Europe, so why not more questionable antitrust cases as well?

Filed Under: antitrust, europe
Companies: ibm, microsoft, psi

Why The Rest Of Tech Industry May Not Be Happy About The EU/Microsoft Decision

from the they're-coming-for-you-next dept

While some in the tech industry are cheering the EU's decision to stick to its antitrust fines and penalties against Microsoft, it may not be such a good thing for the industry as a whole. We were already wondering how the decision benefited customers in any way, and Fortune Magazine is noting that this could spell trouble for other successful American tech companies, who have caught the eye of EU antitrust regulators. Intel, Apple and Google are all being looked at carefully -- and with the success against Microsoft notched away, it could be tougher for these other firms to win. If there really is a monopoly problem, making competition nearly impossible, you can make an argument for the government to step in. However, most of these cases look more like European regulators just looking to see how they can punish American tech firms for being successful. Obviously, this doesn't matter nearly as much for smaller firms and startups -- but should those firms become successful and start to grow rapidly, they too could face the same challenges in Europe.

Filed Under: antitrust, eu, europe
Companies: apple, google, intel, microsoft

EU Smacks Down Microsoft's Antitrust Appeal

from the surprise,-surprise dept

Given just how many times EU regulators have complained about Microsoft's inability to comply with antitrust rulings, it probably comes as little to no surprise to find out that an EU court has rejected Microsoft's appeal of the antitrust ruling against the company, that could cost the company well over $600 million. The court continues to insist that Microsoft needs to sell a version of Windows without Microsoft's media player included while also requiring it to open up more to competitors who want to make sure their software works well with Windows. Of course, it's still not clear how this benefits consumers in any way. It's true that Microsoft bundles its media player, but many, many people have been willing to download and use alternatives. Also, Microsoft is a lot more open than most companies in allowing competitors technology to work on its operating systems. The company has known for quite some time that its success as a platform depends on this. It's hard to see how these are problems that requires regulatory involvement when the market should suffice. There's no doubt that Microsoft has done some nasty things to smaller competitors, but in judging whether or not an antitrust ruling makes sense, the final analysis should depend on whether or not the customer will be better or worse off. It's not clear how the customer is any better off from this decision.

Filed Under: antitrust, eu
Companies: microsoft