NICOLAS PETIT, UNIVERSITY OF LIEGE (ULG) & MIGUEL RATO, SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 11TH CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAW JUDGES (AECLJ) HELSINKI, 15 JUNE 2012 Abuse in Technology-Enabled Markets: Established Standards Reconsidered
21
Embed
Abuse in Technology - Enabled Markets : Established Standards Reconsidered
Abuse in Technology - Enabled Markets : Established Standards Reconsidered. Nicolas Petit, University of Liege ( Ulg ) & Miguel Rato , Shearman & Sterling LLP 11th conference of the Association of european competition law judges ( aeclj ) helsinki , 15 june 2012 . - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
NICOLAS PETIT, UNIVERSITY OF LIEGE (ULG)&
MIGUEL RATO, SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
11TH CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN COMPETITION LAW JUDGES
(AECLJ)
HELSINKI , 15 JUNE 2012
Abuse in Technology-Enabled Markets: Established Standards Reconsidered
2
3
Technology-Enabled Markets?
A loose conceptKey features
Intense degree of innovation Rapid innovation cycles Network-effects First mover advantage Price and product differentiation Importance of standards
Examples => ICT, semiconductors, e-commerce
4
Goals of the Presentation
1. Is a different approach to abuse of dominance required in “technology-enabled ” markets?
2. Explore the various areas of the law on abuse of dominance in light of the specificities of “technology-enabled ” markets
5
Outline
1. Are Technology-Enabled Markets Particularly Prone to Abusive Conduct?
2. Market Definition and Dominance in Technology-Enabled Markets
3. General Reflections on Legal Standards for Unlawful Abuse in Technology-Enabled Markets
4. Three Types of Abuse in Technology-Enabled Markets
constraints across relevant marketsv. Importance of potential competitionvi. The road to dominance may mattervii. IP Rights do not necessarily confer SMPviii.Several misconceptions about standards
8
3. General Reflections on Legal Standards for Abuse in Technology-Enabled Markets
Focus on exclusionary conduct as a matter of priority
Effects-based standards should prevail over forms-based standards
“Likely” effects analysis is forms-based approach in disguise
Not all foreclosure is anticompetitive foreclosureLiability based on “actual” effects is preferable to
liability based on “likely” effectsDifficulty of counterfactual analysis is not a
reason to avoid it
94. Three Types of Abuse in Technology-Enabled Markets
Notoriously difficult to determine when a price is excessive
Risk of chilling competition and investmentCommission has shown remarkable self-restraintIP laws already provide adequate incentives to
innovateEnforcers should thus be wary of applying
competition law to exercise of IPSurprising that most recent excessive pricing
cases concern patents, in particular standard-essential patents (SEPs)
11
4.1. Excessive Pricing
Two types of cases De facto standards Formal standards adopted by SSOs
Different types of proceedings National litigation (patent infringement) Commission investigation
Different types of allegations Violation of a FRAND commitment (patent hold-up) “Competition law” defense
12
4.1. Excessive Pricing
Absence of a thorough legal analysis of the duties imposed on owners of SEPs by Article 102
Straightforward application of the United Brands test in our view incorrect
Appropriate test is Magill/IMS Health (“exceptional circumstances that prevent the development of the secondary market”)
If a dominant firm can refuse to license its patents at any price, then it can also legitimately license them at any price it sees fit
Article 102 will only limit IPR prices where there is an antitrust duty to license
Rambus: Using Article 102 to sanction conduct by non dominant firms?
13
4.2. Abusive Litigation
Theory of harm that has not featured prominently in any case over the last decades
Sudden interest: investigations into Samsung and Motorola
Allegation that mere act of seeking injunctions against unlicensed implementers of SEPs is abusive
One precedent in ITT/Promedia (1998) Key principles: (i) only abusive in “wholly exceptional
circumstances” because access to the courts is a fundamental right; and (ii) exception must be construed narrowly
Legal standard: (i) “action cannot be reasonably considered an attempt to establish the rights of the undertaking concerned”; and (ii) “conceived in the framework of a plan whose goal is to eliminate competition”
14
4.2. Abusive Litigation
Applying ITT/Promedia to Samsung and Motorola Can a request for injunctive relief reasonably be
considered an attempt to establish patent owners’ rights? Yes, unless:
Patent owner was under an antitrust duty to license; Patent owner knowingly breached that duty
The bottom-line => need to apply again the Magill/IMS Health test
+ need to prove that patent owner request for injunction is part of a plan to eliminate competition
Theses are high hurdles to overcome, for good reason
15
4.3. Predatory Pricing
Free products are pervasive on technology-enabled markets (e.g., email accounts, social networks, search engines, news, etc.)
Zero pricing looks suspicious under Article 102, yet should not
Explained by two-sided markets and product versioning The fact that no price is charged on a category of users does
not mean that no price is charged at all (two sided markets) The fact that no price is charged for a particular service
does not mean that no price is charged for other services (versioning)
16
4.3. Predatory Pricing
Bottin Cartographes v Google France, Tribunal de commerce de Paris, 31 January 2012
Case about Google Maps API (Geocoding web services, itineraries, etc.)
17
18
4.3. Predatory Pricing
Complaint from rival supplier of online mapsTribunal de commerce:
Price is “equal to 0” Google thus cannot “recoup” any of the “production costs” Elimination of all competitors on the market and “evidently
part of a wider exclusionary strategy”But:
Classic example of two-sided market => advertisers who seek placement on maps pay for users
Product versioning => website owners can purchase premium version (Google Maps API for business) which is licensed under specific financial conditions
19
5.3. Predatory Pricing
20
5. Conclusion
A substantive remark Technology-enabled markets are a magnifying glass for the flaws of
current legal standards in Article 102 case-law In modern EU competition law, several legal standards compete for
the assessment of abuse A clear choice in favour of the effects-based approach would promote
legal certainty and administrative efficiencyA procedural remark
Technology-enabled market often view as candidate for rapid intervention (Almunia’s recent speech at St Gallen)
This should be avoided, given risks and cost of type I errors are significantly greater on such markets
Difficult to predict demand conditions, or market entry and supply conditions on newly emerging markets (recognised in SSR)
Prudence, as opposed to precaution, should prevail