Apple & Google relationship being investigated for antitrust violations

Federal Trade Commission opened an investigation following the question of knowing if the close links between the councils of two of technologies most important companies, Apple and Google, with a violation of the anti-monopoly acts, according to several people with the current of inquire. Google and Apple have two directors, Eric E. Schmidt, executive director of Google, and Arthur Levinson, former chief of the direction of Genentech. Antitrust Clayton Act of 1914 interdict to a person of the presence to the council administration of two rival companies when it would make it possible to reduce competition between them. The two companies have more and more competition in mobile telephony and the systems exploitation of the markets. Antitrust expert-to say the provision of overlap of the directions, known under the name of section 8 of the law, is seldom respected. Never the less, arranges already notified at Google and Apple of its interest on the matter, according to the people with the current of inquire, which agreed to speak in the condition about anonymity because investigation is confidential.F.T.C. civil servant is refused with any comment. Spokesperson of Apple and of Google also refused to comment on. A spokesperson refused to make Genentech Mr. Levinson available to comment on. The inquire, which seems to be at its beginnings, is the second antitrust examination of Google made surface at these last days. It suggests that, in spite of the proximity of company with administration Obama, Google will not be able to escape examination of the regulation. Mr. Schmidt made countryside for time, the senator Barack Obama, at the time of his presidential campaign and warned to equip with transition and administration on various questions. He was recently appointed president of the Obama advisory counsel on science and technology. Christine A. Varney, which was recently confirmed like the head of the antitrust division of the ministry for Justice, last year, Google finger like a probable source of the future position of the concerns because of its quasi-monopoly on research Internet and publicity. Certain antitrust experts declared they did not expect Google’s ties to the administration to play a role in antitrust issues.”I expect the administration to be aggressive, generally, on antitrust enforcement,”, declared Sanford Litvack, a partner of Hogan & Hartson. Last year, then he worked for the ministry for Justice, Mr. Litvack builds a case to block an advertising partnership between Google and Yahoo. ” I do not wait at Google to be is finger or to receive a pass because of Schmidt its relations with administration” , At it says. Antitrust experts say that the investigations into the directions imbricated seldom to lead to confrontations between large companies and the government. Executive to generally choose to resign of the council a competitor if it poses a problem rather than to face a long investigation or a bruise fights legal. Like many companies of the sector of technology, Google and Apple are at the same time allies and competitors. Google, for example, worked with Apple to design the first versions of some of its services, like Gmail and Google Maps, for Apple iPhone. But the fields in which the companies are of supplantation places the ones against the others from there as of the rivals were in increase. The mobile phones, in particular, occupy a place in future of Google and Apple. Much then Apple leaves these days are related to the success of the iPhone. Google, for its part, said on several occasions that one of its greater strategic opportunities to extend its empire of the online ad in the mobile phones. Whereas Google benefits from the success of iPhone, which pushes more traffic towards its telephone services mobile than import which other apparatus, it produces also the system Android exploitation for mobile phones which are in competition with iPhone. The system of competences, the G1 T-Mobile, a telephone that certain analysts, is able a certain number of rivals. Another phone number of the decision makers plan to deploy devices supplied with Android later this year. And the system Android exploitation is in the course of construction in the light laptops called netbooks, which May in competition with certain Apple laptops.Google and Apple in competition in a variety; other fields. Apple makes the navigator Web Safari whereas Google makes Chrome competition. Apple iTunes and YouTube by Google are more and more in competition that for the places of distribution of the music and videos. And the two companies have photo-editing services. It is not clear if the regulators have finger one of these fields of competition is particularly worrying. Under the terms of the law Clayton, the overlapping directions are not regarded as a problem if the incomes of products in which the companies are made competition is of less than 2 percent of the sales of company or other. “Government action under the terms of article 8 are rare, but they are brought in circumstances where the presence; a director of competition on the councils administration is likely to be anticompetitive” , declared Andrew I. Gavil, an antitrust expert and professor with the University Howard school of Law. Google and Apple leave a competitor Microsoft, which competes with the two companies in certain fields. But the professor said Gavil regulators are not likely to see only like one problem, even if the two companies of Silicon Valley discussed the means of competing more effectively with Microsoft. Mr. Schmidt joined the council administration Apple in 2006, approximately five months before it revealed the iPhone. Google announced its plans for Android, its system exploitation of mobile telephony, close one year later. Since then, the analysts speculated that Mr. Schmidt in the position of the council administration Apple could become intolerable. Google declared it had itself when Apple challenge council administration discusses mobile telephony.

This entry was posted in Antitrust - Competition law and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply