The suit, filed Monday, is the latest move in a protracted battle between American Air parent AMR Corp., online travel agencies and the electronic ticket sellers known as global distribution systems, or GDS.

AMR removed its flights from Orbitz at the end of last year as part of a broader dispute with Travelport, a private equity-controlled company that owns the second-largest U.S. online travel agent as well as three GDS operations.

Read the rest of this post on the original

“We understand that matters are at a very preliminary stage and we are currently reviewing the allegations,” Qualcomm said in a statement.

The commission, Europe’s highest antitrust authority, said they had received a complaint against Qualcomm, but that the investigation was more of a “fact-finding exercise at this stage.”

The probe is based on a complaint from U.K. wireless chip maker Icera, which mainly manufactures chip sets for mobile-broadband devices, such as dongles. “We can confirm that Icera has lodged a complaint with the European Commission, alleging that Qualcomm has engaged in anticompetitive activity,” Qualcomm said.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

$54 billion.

This according to the search sovereign itself in a paper released today quantifying its economic impact on the country, state by state.

In California, the company, which reported $23.7 billion in revenue last year, claims responsibility for more than $14 billion of economic activity, and in New York, $6.3 billion. These figures were calculated by adding the profit generated by businesses that use Google AdWords, the monies Google paid out to AdSense publishers and the in-kind grants the company doles out to nonprofits in each state.

“We conservatively estimate that for every $1 a business spends on AdWords, they receive an average of $8 in profit through Google Search and AdWords,” the company said in its report.

Which is something to think about–particularly for federal regulators concerned that Google’s growing market power is becoming anticompetitive. And that, I imagine, is the whole point of this exercise. What better way to counter perceptions that Google (GOOG) merits antitrust scrutiny than to highlight its positive effect on the national economy?

“This week came news that the European Commission is investigating various aspects of Google’s conduct, including claims of retaliation, exclusivity and manipulation of search results to disadvantage rivals,” Heiner wrote. “Google’s public response to this growing regulatory concern has been to point elsewhere–at Microsoft. Google is telling reporters that antitrust concerns about search are not real because some of the complaints come from one of its last remaining search competitors….[But] ultimately what’s important is not who is complaining, but whether or not the challenged practices are anticompetitive.”

A great point, and one that makes Google’s inflammatory out-of-the-gate finger-pointing earlier this week seem a bit hysterical. And if Microsoft’s European properties did spur the EC’s preliminary investigation into Google, so what? As Heiner wryly notes, “Complaints in competition law cases usually come from competitors”–“dumbass” here is, presumably, implied.

So does Microsoft (MSFT) feel Google (GOOG) is worthy of antitrust scrutiny? Well, what do you think?

“Both search and online advertising are increasingly controlled by a single firm, Google,” Heiner wrote. “…Microsoft would obviously be among the first to say that leading firms should not be punished for their success. Nor should firms be punished just because a particular business practice may harm a rival–competition on the merits can do that, too. That is a position that Microsoft has long espoused, and we’re sticking to it. Our concerns relate only to Google practices that tend to lock in business partners and content (like Google Books) and exclude competitors, thereby undermining competition more broadly. Ultimately the competition law agencies will have to decide whether or not Google’s practices should be seen as illegal.”

Well, there you go. Obviously, the gloves are coming off here. Too bad for Google that it doesn’t take a punch very well.

“Although the United States believes the parties have approached this effort in good faith and the amended settlement agreement is more circumscribed in its sweep than the original proposed settlement, the amended settlement agreement suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement,” the DOJ said in a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“It is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation,” the report continues. “Under the [revised proposal], Google would remain the only competitor in the digital marketplace with the rights to distribute and otherwise exploit a vast array of works in multiple formats. Google also would have the exclusive ability to exploit unclaimed works–including so-called ‘orphan works’–without risk of liability.”

And then there was this:

Google’s exclusive access to millions and millions of books may well benefit Google’s existing online search business. Google already holds a relatively dominant market share in that market. That dominance may be further entrenched by its exclusive access to content through the ASA. Content that can be discovered by only one search engine offers that search engine at least some protection from competition. This outcome has not been achieved by a technological advance in search or by operation of normal market forces; rather, it is the direct product of scanning millions of books without the copyright holders’ consent.

In other words, the amended deal continues to give Google (GOOG) significant anticompetitive advantages and rewards the company for scanning books in violation of copyright protections. And while the Justice Department did not go so far as to explicitly urge rejection of the deal, it recommended that parties to the settlement make further changes before the Feb. 18 fairness hearing at which it is to be reviewed.

Another setback for Google, or as Gary Reback–a Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer who represents Microsoft (MSFT) and the Open Book Alliance, a coalition opposed to the settlement–said, the filing is a “profound embarrassment–bordering on an outright humiliation” for the search company.

Under terms of the agreement, Intel (INTC) will pay AMD (AMD) $1.25 billion (nearly a quarter of AMD’s $4.46 billion market cap) and agree to “abide by a set of business practice provisions” presumably crafted to temper Intel’s allegedly anticompetitive practices. Here are details of the agreement:

Business Practices Provisions Prohibit Intel From:

• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to buy all of their microprocessor needs from Intel, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.1.1.a)
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit or delay their purchase of microprocessors from AMD, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.1.1.b)
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to limit their engagement with AMD or their promotion or distribution of products containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, channel, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.1.2a-b)
• Offering inducements to customers in exchange for their agreement to abstain from or delay their participation in AMD product launches, announcements, advertising, or other promotional activities (Section 2.1.2.b)
• Offering inducements to customers or others to delay or forebear in the development or release of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.2.2 and 2.1.2)
• Offering inducements to retailers or distributors to limit or delay their purchase or distribution of computer systems or platforms containing AMD microprocessors, whether on a geographic, market segment, or any other basis (Section 2.2.1)
• Withholding any benefit or threatening retaliation against anyone for their refusal to enter into a prohibited arrangement such as the ones listed above.

In return, AMD will drop all its pending litigation against the company and pull out of regulatory complaints worldwide. Finally, the two rivals will enter into a five-year patent cross-licensing agreement.

In a joint statement, the companies said, “While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development.”

Interesting. Clearly, AMD CEO Dirk Meyer’s earlier comments about the ratification of its complaints about Intel’s business practices and the company’s hope for a future in which AMD’s “ability to succeed as a business is really determined by the quality of our products and customer relationships” was quite prefigurative.

During a call to discuss the settlement, Meyer said the accord marks the beginning of a new era, one that changes the game for AMD. “It is an important milestone for us, for our customers, our partners, and most importantly–for consumers and businesses worldwide,” Meyer said.

“It is the culmination years of litigation and regulatory engagement, and we are optimistic that it will usher a new era for our industry,” the CEO continued, further noting that change may not be immediate. “We recognize that it will take time for people to understand how the operating conditions in processor business have changed–but make no mistake–they have changed….We look forward to healthy competition with the mutual respect one would expect between world-class competitors.”

It is unclear if the settlement will affect the antitrust suit brought against Intel by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo last week as Cuomo hasn’t yet commented. But the European Union says it will not change its decision in May to fine Intel a record $1.5 billion for anticompetitive behavior.

“The European Commission takes note that Intel and AMD have settled all their litigation and that Intel is paying AMD compensation of one-and-quarter billion dollars,” said an EC spokesman. “But Intel has an ongoing obligation to comply with the commission’s antitrust decision and with EU competition law. The commission continues to vigorously monitor Intel’s compliance with its obligations under the EU antitrust decision.”

In remarks made during AMD Financial Analyst Day, CEO Dirk Meyer said that Intel’s (INTC) current legal woes “ratify” AMD’s (AMD) allegations.

“We’ve said for a long time that our success in the marketplace was hampered by anticompetitive behavior on the part of Intel,” Meyer said. “And over the last 12 months that we’ve seen our statements ratified by regulators around the world….I’m looking forward to a future in which our ability to succeed as a business is really determined by the quality of our products and customer relationships. And I can tell you that hasn’t always been true.”