Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 11:08 UTC
Apple "European Union regulators are examining the contracts Apple strikes with cellphone carriers that sell its iPhone for possible antitrust violations after several carriers complained that the deals throttled competition." Well paint me red and call me a girl scout.
Thread beginning with comment 556302
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: big sigh
by jared_wilkes on Sat 23rd Mar 2013 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: big sigh"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

I'm also unclear as to what parallel you see with Chiquita where they clearly did have a massive monopoly and the EU needed to create new trade restrictions to control their business by artificially limiting imports based on region to prevent too many bananas from coming in from South America where the majority of Chiquita's production lies.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: big sigh
by oskeladden on Sat 23rd Mar 2013 00:43 in reply to "RE[6]: big sigh"
oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

I'm also unclear as to what parallel you see with Chiquita where they clearly did have a massive monopoly and the EU needed to create new trade restrictions to control their business by artificially limiting imports based on region to prevent too many bananas from coming in from South America where the majority of Chiquita's production lies.


The argument in that case was that bananas (where Chiquita was dominant) should be seen as part of an overall market for fresh fruits (where they were not, and where they did not have market power). What was important about the case at the time was that it recognised a principle that consumer preferences for one product (bananas) above others (oranges) would be taken into account in determining whether a person had market power.

This principle has since been extended to preferences for individual brands in cases involving cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, amongst other things, to the extent that commentators on the topic now tend to the view that the traditional market definition is pretty much irrelevant in these cases.

Again, I don't think there's very much more I can say on this point - the law is what it is, regardless of whether or not you accept it. I don't particularly care whether Apple win or lose, but a decision from the Commission either way would be welcome (even if it's only a decision not to investigate), as it'll provide much needed clarity on how the 'differentiated product' jurisprudence applies to electronics.

I'll let you have the last word on this too.

Edited 2013-03-23 00:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: big sigh
by jared_wilkes on Sat 23rd Mar 2013 01:19 in reply to "RE[7]: big sigh"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Claiming "the argument" in United Brands was just a question of market definition is patently absurd. There were numerous issues and pretty much across the board Chiquita's arguments were weak. Defining the market as "bananas" rather than "all fruits" seems perfectly logical and noncontroversial to me... and not particular relevant to this case.

This principle has since been extended to preferences for individual brands in cases involving cosmetics and pharmaceuticals...


So United Brands is not applicable (the difference between defining a market as a particular fruit rather than all fruits is quite different than defining a market as a single brand) and you can cite other cases which involve defining a market by a single brand? Or are you conflating the definition of the market with dominance of the market? It's unclear, your argument has become very muddy.

Edited 2013-03-23 01:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2