Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

I'd like to order a winpho..... | 523 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

I'd like to order a winpho.....

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 07:36 PM EDT

Please stop making inappropriate analogies. In anti-trust matters the degree
of market power that a firm has is crucial to determining whether or not there
are legal violations. MS used to have a monopoly in the PC OS market and so
it was dinged in Europe for tying IE to Windows. But no one ever suggested
that Apple (no market power) should have any duty with respect to browser
choice on its OS. Here Google has very substantial power and MS, Nokia etc.
have none, so restrictions on Google might be legally justified while similar
restrictions on MS et al. would not be. It trivializes the anti-trust situation
to
say that you should restrict a monopoly unless you also restrict the
competitive fringe. It is both legal and fair to do one without doing the other.

For the record I think that Fair Search are disgusting and I am intensely
irritated that Almunia seems to be imposing unfair restrictions on Google.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Monopolies not illegal, abusive monopolies are - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 08:47 PM EDT
I'd like to order a winpho..... - Authored by: lnuss on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 09:38 PM EDT
I'd like to order a winpho..... - Authored by: PJ on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 11:25 PM EDT
I'd like to order a winpho..... - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, July 20 2013 @ 02:42 AM EDT

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )