That’s the day Microsoft will learn whether anything has come of its challenge to the $1.14 billion penalty the European Union slapped it with eight years ago for failing to comply with its antitrust decision.

In just over a month’s time, the EU’s General Court will rule on Microsoft’s appeal of the fine, the culmination of a long, contentious legal battle over interoperability. Issued after it was determined that Microsoft had failed to comply with a 2004 antitrust judgment that required the company to charge fair and reasonable rates for its interoperability protocols, the $1.14 billion fine was the largest ever imposed by the EU against a single company, and the very first to be meted out for noncompliance with an EU court order.

It was also, in Microsoft’s opinion, “unnecessary, unlawful and totally disproportionate.”

“This case would not have arisen if the commission had been as explicit with respect to rates which it wanted Microsoft to charge as it had been with all other terms of licensing proposed by Microsoft,” Microsoft’s attorney Jean-François Bellis told the EU General Court at the time the company filed its appeal. “How can the Commission fine Microsoft for failing to apply reasonable rates from June 2006 to October 2007 when the final parameters were only determined on October 22, 2007?”

In short, Microsoft says it failed to comply with the order because EU regulators didn’t give it the guidance it needed to do so. Interesting argument, but will it carry any weight with the EU General Court?

In a letter to Google chairman Eric Schmidt, European competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia outlined four specific antitrust concerns identified during the EC investigation.

The first: Google may be unfairly exploiting its market position by giving preferential treatment to its own services in its search results. The second: The company may have copied material from rivals’ Web sites. The third and fourth relate to search advertising and allegations that Google requires sites “to obtain all or most of their requirements of search advertisements from Google, thus shutting out competing providers of search advertising intermediation services.”

These are just preliminary conclusions, but because Google has been pushing for a settlement, Almunia is offering the company a chance to resolve them before the EC pushes ahead with what would inevitably be a protracted and unpleasant probe.

“I offer Google the possibility to come up in a matter of weeks with remedies,” Almunia said. “If Google comes up with an outline of remedies which are capable of addressing our concerns, I will instruct my staff to initiate the discussions in order to finalize a remedies package.”

Reached for comment, a Google spokesperson said the company has “only just started to look through the commission’s arguments.”

“We disagree with the conclusions, but we’re happy to discuss any concerns they might have,” the spokesperson said. “Competition on the Web has increased dramatically in the last two years since the commission started looking at this, and the competitive pressures Google faces are tremendous. Innovation online has never been greater.”

In a ruling issued moments ago, ITC Judge Thomas Pender found that Apple infringed the first four claims of Motorola patent # 6,246,697 — “Method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access signal.”

“We are pleased that the ALJ’s initial determination finds Apple to be in violation of Motorola Mobility’s intellectual property, and look forward to the full commission’s ruling in August,” Motorola said in a statement to AllThingsD. “Our commitment to innovation is a primary reason why we are an industry-leader in intellectual property, and our focus continues to be on building on this strong foundation to enhance the user experience.”

But Apple says this ruling isn’t much of a victory for Motorola. For one thing, the ITC ruled in its favor on only one out of four disputed patents. For another, the patent it did find Apple to have infringed is a standards-essential one that the iPhone maker alleges Motorola refuses to license under fair and reasonable terms. And Motorola’s standards-essential patent licensing policies are currently under investigation by the European Commission.

“We’re glad the court ruled in our favor on three of four patents patents being considered,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet told AllThingsD. “The fourth covers industry-standard technology which Motorola has refused to license to Apple on reasonable terms. A court in Germany has already ruled that Apple did not infringe on this patent, so we believe we will have a very strong case on appeal.”

The European Commission’s approval marks a coup for Sony, which has averted a lengthy in-depth second probe. However, European Union authorities set several conditions, telling Sony it must divest several assets.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Approval by the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, would represent a victory for Sony, removing the possibility of a longer review of the deal’s antitrust implications. Such a review could add several months to the process.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

“… The commission will investigate … whether by seeking and enforcing injunctions against Apple’s and Microsoft’s flagship products such as iPhone, iPad, Windows and Xbox on the basis of patents it had declared essential to produce standard-compliant products, Motorola has failed to honor its irrevocable commitments made to standard setting organizations,” the Commission said in a statement.

Also subject to the Commission’s probe: Allegations by both Apple and Microsoft that Motorola has refused to license standards-essential patents on the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms by both the Commission and standard-setting organizations.

Apple complains that Motorola has demanded from it “a maximum per-unit royalty of 2.25 percent” on each iPhone sold for the standards-essential patents used in the device. And Microsoft says Motorola is demanding royalties of $22.50 on every midrange laptop that makes use of its portfolio of 50 patents on the H.264 video standard. Both companies argue that those rates are vastly inflated compared to the rest of the industry. More to the point, they don’t seem fair or reasonable. But they do seem to run contrary to the principles of FRAND licensing commitments by which Motorola is expected to abide.

So it will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The Commission can fine companies up to 10 percent of their worldwide annual income if it finds them guilty of antitrust violations. It can also force them to change their business practices. In other words, the potential consequences here are quite serious, not just for Motorola, but also for Google, which is acquiring it.

“If and when Google closes the deal, it will effectively buy itself into two more EU antitrust investigations,” FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller observes. “It’s time for some people in Mountain View to realize that a multi-front war against competition authorities, on three continents in parallel, is a war that they won’t be able to win.”

Google, for its part, is steeling itself for the double probe.

“We haven’t finalized our acquisition of Motorola Mobility, but will work with the European Commission to answer any questions they might have,” a company spokeswoman told AllThingsD. “We have longstanding concerns about patent abuses, including lawsuits and royalty demands targeting the Android ecosystem.”

Targeted in the query are the so-called E5 — Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefónica, and Vodafone — whose CEOs met occasionally, beginning in 2010, ostensibly to discuss major industry issues.

Topics of discussion reportedly ran the gamut of innocent topics — from mobile payment platforms to the creation of a common app platform. But evidently the EC is concerned that more nefarious things may have been discussed, and if that was the case, whether the meetings constituted collusion.

The European Commission confirmed the inquiry, but stressed that at this stage no formal investigation has been launched.

“The requests for information relate to the manner in which standardization for future services in the mobile-communications area is taking place,” a spokesman for EC Competition Chief Joaquin Almunia explained. “These fact-finding steps do not mean that we have competition concerns at this stage, nor do they prejudge the follow-up.”

So this may not necessarily lead to an official investigation. That said, such requests do often signal that a more detailed probe is in the offing.

Regulators warned Google that their approval of the $12.5-billion acquisition does not preclude continued monitoring of the company’s use of MoMo’s arsenal of 17,000 patents — particularly those deemed standards essential (SEP). Both agencies are clearly very wary of the possibility for their misuse, given Google’s recent endorsement of the not-really-fair-and-reasonable-at-all licensing terms Motorola Mobility has been trying to squeeze out of Apple and others — 2.25 percent of the net selling price in which its patented technology is used. And their dueling statements announcing the approval of the merger reflect this.

Here’s the DOJ:

“In light of the importance of this industry to consumers and the complex issues raised by the intersection of the intellectual property rights and antitrust law at issue here, as well as uncertainty as to the exercise of the acquired rights, the division continues to monitor the use of SEPs in the wireless device industry, particularly in the smartphone and computer tablet markets. The division will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action to stop any anticompetitive use of SEP rights.”

And the EC:

“Today’s decision does not mean that the merger clearance blesses all actions by Motorola in the past or all future action by Google with regard to the use of these standard essential patents. Our decision today is without prejudice to the legality under EU antitrust law of Motorola’s past and Google’s future actions. However, the question whether Motorola’s or Google’s conduct is compliant with EU antitrust law cannot be dealt with in the context of the merger procedure.”

In other words, neither agency feels that the SEP and FRAND licensing issues surrounding this acquisition have been properly dealt with. But they will be, if the need arises. And Google best tread carefully.

In a speech given at the Concurrences conference in Paris today, Almunia promised to take a hard line with the abuse of technology standards-related patents.

“When monopolies and tight oligopolies are allowed to occupy a market, they tend to resist change and often end up caring only about the preservation of their business models,” Almunia said. “Owners of such standards essential patents are conferred a power on the market that they cannot be allowed to misuse.”

And should they try, there will be hell to pay, because Almunia is fully prepared to use the EU’s antitrust powers to thwart them.

“I am determined to use antitrust enforcement to prevent the misuse of patent rights to the detriment of a vigorous and accessible market,” he said. “I have initiated investigations on this issue in several sectors and we will see the results in due time.”

Among those inquiries? A formal investigation into Samsung to determine whether it’s using standards-essential patents to manipulate the mobile market in Europe.

However, antitrust enforcers in the U.S. and Europe remain concerned about Google’s commitment to license key Motorola patents to competitors on fair terms, those people said, and are likely to closely monitor Google’s use of the patents. The European Commission has set a deadline of Monday to decide whether to approve the acquisition.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The case hinges on standards-essential patents, patents which cover an area that is crucial to compliance with an industry standard, such as 3G or Wi-Fi.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Reuters reports that the EC will likely make that decision by March. “I will receive comments from the case team towards the end of the first quarter,” said EC antitrust commissioner Joaquin Almunia. “I do not expect anything sooner. Let us see.”

Let us see, indeed. There are rumblings that the EC is compiling a Statement of Objections detailing Google’s various alleged abuses of its market dominance and could drop it in CEO Larry Page’s lap sometime this spring.

Of course, Google is facing regulatory scrutiny in the United States as well. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission said it would expand its antitrust probe of the company to include its controversial “search, plus your world” feature, which introduces social content from the company’s Google+ service into users’ search results.

At a congressional hearing, Sharis Pozen, the Justice Department’s acting antitrust chief, said: “We are also investigating the electronic book industry, along with the European Commission and the states attorneys general.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

A press release from the European Commission doesn’t provide much detail into the probe, which will look at Apple along with Lagardère Publishing’s Hachette Livre, News Corp.’s HarperCollins, CBS’s Simon & Schuster, Pearson’s Penguin and Germany’s Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck (News Corp. also owns this Web site).

The EU says it will “investigate whether these publishing groups and Apple have engaged in illegal agreements or practices that would have the object or the effect of restricting competition.”

It also says it will look at the “agency” pricing agreements that Apple pushed through when it introduced the iPad back in 2010. Those deals allow publishers to set the retail price of their books, and give retailers like Apple’s iTunes a set percentage of the transaction.

The previous wholesale model, championed by Amazon, allowed retailers to set the price of books. After a series of high-profile negotiations, Amazon has moved to the agency model as well; the e-commerce giant still dominates the e-book market.

A bit of background: Some of Samsung’s counterclaims against Apple are based upon patents essential to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications Standard (UMTS), patents that it has pledged to license under “Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory” (FRAND) terms. Apple has argued that this is bad business and a breach of Samsung’s FRAND commitment. Now it seems the European Commission has taken an interest in determining whether that’s true or not.

From Apple’s proposed amendment:

Samsung has launched an aggressive, worldwide campaign to enjoin Apple from allegedly practicing Samsung’s patents. Samsung has sued Apple for infringement and injunctions in no fewer than eight countries outside the United States. Indeed, Samsung’s litigation campaign and other conduct related to its Declared-Essential Patents is so egregious that the European Commission recently has opened an investigation to determine whether Samsung’s behavior violates EU competition laws.

Now, as FOSS Patents points out, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) has not yet officially announced the investigation to which Apple refers. But if the company feels comfortable mentioning it in legal filings, one is surely in the offing.

And that’s truly bad news for Samsung, particularly if the inquiry finds merit in Apple’s claims. If the DG COMP determines that Samsung’s behavior is anticompetitive, it can slap the company with nasty fines and remedies and potentially force it to withdraw many of its claims against Apple.

As expected, the European Commission approved Microsoft’s $8.5 billion acquisition of Skype late last week.

Next, the deal for the popular Internet communications company — which had previously been cleared by U.S. regulators — is likely to officially close later this week (paperwork!), said several sources close to the situation.

Now, of course, comes the hard part — which is whether Microsoft can successfully integrate the more nimble Skype into the belly of the software beast and allow it to thrive.

Some key questions:

How smoothly can Microsoft integrate Skype into its existing products, such as its unified communications platform, Outlook mail and Hotmail, Office, Messenger and Xbox Live? And, perhaps most of all, Windows Phone devices?

That said, will Skype also get to do what it needs for its own success beyond Microsoft? That includes working with mobile rivals Apple and Google, who now dominate the smartphone market, as well as many others. It has already managed to buy GroupMe group messaging start-up for $85 million, just months after its own acquisition in May.

And can the division — which will be led by Tony Bates, Skype’s CEO and now a Microsoft president — operate successfully located mostly away from the power center of Redmond, Wash.? Skype has a substantial office in Silicon Valley, as well as key engineering units in Estonia and Stockholm.

In that vein, will Microsoft be able to hold on to new talent like Bates and Skype’s geek squad, all of whom have substantial choices elsewhere? Like a lot of large tech companies, Microsoft is not known for being able to hold on to those who come in from the outside, in large part due to its insular culture of longtime execs.

In other words, how big a welcome will Microsoft’s other powerful presidents — such as Windows division head Steven Sinofsky — give Bates and company?

“In the area of consumer communications, the investigation found that the parties’ activities mainly overlap for video communications, where Microsoft is active through its Windows Live Messenger,” the commission said in a statement.

“However, the Commission considers that there are no competition concerns in this growing market where numerous players, including Google, are present.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Meted out after it was determined that Microsoft had failed to comply with a 2004 antitrust judgement that required the company to charge reasonable rates for its interoperability protocols, the $1.26 billion fine was the largest ever imposed by the EU against a single company, the first to be issued for noncompliance with a court order and, in Microsoft’s opinion, “unnecessary, unlawful and totally disproportionate.”

“This case would not have arisen if the commission had been as explicit with respect to rates which it wanted Microsoft to charge as it had been with all other terms of licensing proposed by Microsoft,” Jean-François Bellis, Microsoft’s attorney told the EU General Court. “How can the commission fine Microsoft for failing to apply reasonable rates from June 2006 to October 2007 when the final parameters were only determined on October 22, 2007?”

In other words, it’s the commission’s fault the fine was so high, because it didn’t give Microsoft the information it needed to avoid it in the first place.

Interesting argument, though it seems doubtful it will carry much weight with a court when, according to commission lawyers, Microsoft is on record claiming it understood what reasonable rates were.

Microsoft’s legal eagle Brad Smith didn’t even bother to pretend the software giant’s filing of a formal antitrust complaint against Google with the European Commission wasn’t a wee bit ironic.

Wrote Smith in a blog post late last night:

“There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step.”

But take it the company did, noting: “Microsoft is filing a formal complaint with the European Commission as part of the Commission’s ongoing investigation into whether Google has violated European competition law.”

Google, no surprise, disagreed, via a statement from a spokesman.

“We’re not surprised that Microsoft has done this, since one of their subsidiaries was one of the original complainants. For our part, we continue to discuss the case with the European Commission and we’re happy to explain to anyone how our business works.”

Here is the whole Microsoft post, in which Smith outlines Microsoft reasons for its action:

Adding our Voice to Concerns about Search in Europe

30 Mar 2011 9:00 PM

Posted by Brad Smith

Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft is filing a formal complaint with the European Commission as part of the Commission’s ongoing investigation into whether Google has violated European competition law. We thought it important to be transparent and provide some information on what we’re doing and why.

At the outset, we should be among the first to compliment Google for its genuine innovations, of which there have been many over the past decade. As the only viable search competitor to Google in the U.S. and much of Europe, we respect their engineering prowess and competitive drive. Google has done much to advance its laudable mission to “organize the world’s information,” but we’re concerned by a broadening pattern of conduct aimed at stopping anyone else from creating a competitive alternative.

We’ve therefore decided to join a large and growing number of companies registering their concerns about the European search market. By the European Commission’s own reckoning, Google has about 95 percent of the search market in Europe. This contrasts with the United States, where Microsoft serves about a quarter of Americans’ search needs either directly through Bing or through our partnership with Yahoo!.

At Microsoft we’ve shown that we’re prepared to work hard and invest literally billions of dollars annually to offer Bing, a search service that many now regard as the most innovative available. But, hard work and innovation need a fair and competitive marketplace in which to thrive, and twice the Department of Justice has intervened to thwart Google’s unlawful conduct from impeding fair competition. In 2008 the DOJ moved to file suit against Google for its unlawful attempt to tie up and set search advertising prices at Yahoo!, causing Google to back down. And last year the DOJ formally objected to Google’s efforts to monopolize book content, a position affirmed by a federal district court in New York just last week. Unfortunately, even this has not stopped the spread by Google of new and disconcerting practices in the United States.

As troubling as the situation is in United States, it is worse in Europe. That is why our filing today focuses on a pattern of actions that Google has taken to entrench its dominance in the markets for online search and search advertising to the detriment of European consumers.

How does it do this? Google has built its business on indexing and displaying snippets of other organizations’ Web content. It understands as well as anyone that search engines depend upon the openness of the Web in order to function properly, and it’s quick to complain when others undermine this. Unfortunately, Google has engaged in a broadening pattern of walling off access to content and data that competitors need to provide search results to consumers and to attract advertisers.

On PCs it is usually not difficult for people to navigate to any search engine. Google in fact makes this point virtually every time someone raises antitrust concerns about their practices. Their defense ignores the hugely important fact that there are many other important ways that search services compete. Search engines compete to index the Web as fully as possible so they can generate good search results, they compete to gain advertisers (the source of revenue in this business), and they compete to gain distribution of their search boxes through Web sites. Consumers will not benefit from clicking to alternative sites unless all search engines have a fair opportunity to compete in each of these areas.

Our filing details many instances where Google is impeding competition in these areas. A half-dozen examples below help illustrate some of our concerns.

First, in 2006 Google acquired YouTube–and since then it has put in place a growing number of technical measures to restrict competing search engines from properly accessing it for their search results. Without proper access to YouTube, Bing and other search engines cannot stand with Google on an equal footing in returning search results with links to YouTube videos and that, of course, drives more users away from competitors and to Google.

Second, in 2010 and again more recently, Google blocked Microsoft’s new Windows Phones from operating properly with YouTube. Google has enabled its own Android phones to access YouTube so that users can search for video categories, find favorites, see ratings, and so forth in the rich user interfaces offered by those phones. It’s done the same thing for the iPhones offered by Apple, which doesn’t offer a competing search service.

Unfortunately, Google has refused to allow Microsoft’s new Windows Phones to access this YouTube metadata in the same way that Android phones and iPhones do. As a result, Microsoft’s YouTube “app” on Windows Phones is basically just a browser displaying YouTube’s mobile Web site, without the rich functionality offered on competing phones. Microsoft is ready to release a high quality YouTube app for Windows Phone. We just need permission to access YouTube in the way that other phones already do, permission Google has refused to provide.

Third, Google is seeking to block access to content owned by book publishers. This was underscored in federal court in New York last week, in the decision involving Google’s effort to obtain exclusive and unfettered access to the large volume of so-called “orphan books–books for which no copyright holder can readily be found. Under Google’s plan only its search engine would be able to return search results from these books. As the federal court said in rejecting this plan, “Google’s ability to deny competitors the ability to search orphan books would further entrench Google’s market power in the online search market.” This is an important initial step under U.S. law, but it needs to be reinforced by similar positions in Europe and the rest of the world.

Fourth, Google is even restricting its customers’–namely, advertisers’–access to their own data. Advertisers input large amounts of data into Google’s ad servers in the course of managing their advertising campaigns. This data belongs to the advertisers: it reflects their decisions about their own business. But Google contractually prohibits advertisers from using their data in an interoperable way with other search advertising platforms, such as Microsoft’s adCenter.

This makes it much more costly for Google’s advertisers to run portions of their campaigns with any competitor, and thus less likely that they will do so. That is a significant problem because most advertisers figure that they have to advertise first with Google. If it’s too expensive to port their advertising campaign data to competing advertising platforms, many won’t do it. Competing search engines are left with less relevant ads, and less revenue. And while this restraint isn’t visible to consumers, its effects are nonetheless felt across the Web. Advertising revenue is the economic propellant fueling the billions of dollars needed for ongoing search investments. By reducing competitors’ ability to attract advertising revenue, this restriction strikes at the heart of a competitive market.

Fifth, this undermining of competition is reflected in concerns that go beyond Google’s control over content. One of the ways that search engines attract users is through distribution of search boxes through Web sites. Unfortunately, Google contractually blocks leading Web sites in Europe from distributing competing search boxes. It is obviously difficult for competing search engines to gain users when nearly every search box is powered by Google. Google’s exclusivity terms have even blocked Microsoft from distributing its Windows Live services, such as email and online document storage, through European telecommunications companies because these services are monetized through Bing search boxes.

Finally, we share the concerns expressed by many others that Google discriminates against would-be competitors by making it more costly for them to attain prominent placement for their advertisements. Microsoft has provided the Commission with a considerable body of expert analysis concerning how search engine algorithms work and the competitive significance of promoting or demoting various advertisements.

Over the past year, a growing number of advertisers, publishers, and consumers have expressed to us their concerns about the search market in Europe. They’ve urged us to share our knowledge of the search market with competition officials. As they’ve pointed out, the stakes are high for the European economy. On any given day, more than half of all Europeans use the Internet, and more than 90 percent of them look for information about goods and services on the Web. Indeed, the European Commission’s Digital Agenda made clear that commerce is moving online, where two-thirds of Europeans begin their shopping process. It’s therefore critical that search engines and online advertising move forward in an open, fair and competitive manner.

There of course will be some who will point out the irony in today’s filing. Having spent more than a decade wearing the shoe on the other foot with the European Commission, the filing of a formal antitrust complaint is not something we take lightly. This is the first time Microsoft Corporation has ever taken this step. More so than most, we recognize the importance of ensuring that competition laws remain balanced and that technology innovation moves forward.

We readily appreciate that Google should continue to have the freedom to innovate. But it shouldn’t be permitted to pursue practices that restrict others from innovating and offering competitive alternatives. That’s what it’s doing now. And that’s what we hope European officials will assess and ultimately decide to stop.

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

The Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission’s interest in Apple’s new subscription service is at a preliminary stage, and might not develop into either a formal investigation or any action against the company. But it comes as Apple has attracted growing antitrust scrutiny in the U.S. and Europe.

A spokeswoman for the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, said Thursday that the commission was aware of the new subscription service and was “carefully monitoring the situation.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Or wanted it–at least not the kind that Schmidt’s been offering recently, which was on display once again today in yet another PR gaffe.

Asked by the Sunday Telegraph about the European Commission inquiry into the company’s dominance in search, Schmidt spun the requests for information that Google received as part of that investigation as the beginnings of possible settlement discussions.

“I think it is in our interests and I would hope in their interests to do a quick analysis of concerns that have been raised by competitors, hopefully they are minor or they are not correct, and we’ll find out and make sure we are operating well within the law and the spirit of the law,” he said. “We understand we play a major role in Europe and we’re not denying that. We have a lot of meetings with appropriate government officials.”

We have a lot of meetings with appropriate government officials.

If that’s true, the officials to which Schmidt refers have nothing to do with the European inquiry into Google’s business practices. Because the European Commission today flat-out denied it is in antitrust resolution talks with the company. “There are no discussions,” commission spokeswoman Amelia Torres said in a statement. “The investigation is not finished.”

We have a lot of meetings with appropriate government officials. One more to add to Schmidt’s dubious canon.

Yep, Google.

Turns out that in France, 90 percent of Internet searches are conducted via Google. And while that might be concerning from a competitive standpoint, it doesn’t constitute a breach of law and Google is in no danger of sanctions. Right now, anyway.

“This dominant position is not reprehensible: it results from a great deal of innovation, supported by significant and continuous investments,” Autorite de la Concurrence concluded. “Only the abusive exercise of such market power could be sanctioned.”

That said, the agency’s findings will undoubtedly invite further scrutiny of Google abroad. Certainly, it adds a bit more heat to the European Commission’s investigation into allegations that Google abuses its dominant position in search.

Google, for its part, argues that just because it’s dominant in search doesn’t mean search and search advertising isn’t competitive.

“Search ads are one of many options for advertisers,” the company said in a statement. “If the price of search ads rises, advertisers can and do switch to other formats, both online and offline. That is the sign of a competitive and dynamic industry.”

The commission received complaints from other Internet search providers that Google abused its dominant market position by allegedly placing their services lower in results rankings, while Google’s own services were given preferential placing.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »