Famous U.S. Anti-Trust Cases

We finally have our first guest post on ICAB!! Judy Leeson has been a practicing lawyer for twelve years and also own the site www.lawdegree.net. Here she outlines and summarizes three of the most landmark judgements in U.S. anti-trust history. A detail discussion on them can also be found in the book The Master Switch by Timothy Wu. (A review of the book can be found on this blog itself.)


Standard Oil

Standard Oil was founded in 1870, when kerosene cost 30 cents per gallon. By 1897, the company had driven the price down to 6 cents a gallon, which put many of its competitors out of business. Although the trust was broken up in the state of Ohio in 1892, Standard simply separated the Ohio branch and kept control of the company.

A few years later, a law change in New Jersey allowed a company to hold shares in other companies, even those in other states. Thus, in 1899 Standard Oil Trust became a holding company based in New York which owned stock in Standard Oil of Ohio and 41 other companies – many of which owned stock in companies themselves. Standard Oil effectively became the largest company in the world.

In 1906, the U.S. government filed suit against Standard Oil for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. The company was found guilty in 1909 and the decision was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1911. Standard was forced to break up into 34 independent companies, some of which have since merged into the multinational corporation, ExxonMobil.

AT&T

AT&T was granted “natural monopoly” status by the U.S. government for many years in the first half of the 20th century, but even after new competitors the market it was frequently challenged it as a monopoly. Finally in 1974, the U.S. Attorney General filed suit against the company for violating antitrust laws. The case took seven years before a settlement was reached to split the company into seven new companies, each serving a different region of the U.S. However, five of the seven have since merged to become AT&T Incorporated, which is now the 14th largest company in the world.

Microsoft

In 1991 the FTC began to investigate whether Microsoft was abusing its monopoly on the market for PC operating systems. They closed the investigation in 1993 but the U.S. Department of Justice opened a new investigation later that year. In a 1994 settlement, Microsoft consented not to tie other Microsoft products to the sale of Windows but could still integrate new features into the operating system.

When Internet Explorer was introduced in 1995, Microsoft insisted that it was a feature rather than a new Windows product. The U.S. Department of Justice did not agree and filed suit against Microsoft for illegally discouraging competition to protect extend its software monopoly. In 2000, the court ordered Microsoft to break into two separate units, one for the operating system and another to produce software.

Following court appeals, a new settlement ordered less severe penalty that required Microsoft to share application programming interfaces with third-party companies. Nine states did not agree with the settlement, calling it a mere “slap on the wrist,” that was not severe enough.

Competition Surfing

An interesting pastime, if albeit, a tad bit nerdy for me has always been what I like to call “Competition Surfing”. Essentially, it involves randomly browsing through the internet for anything interesting related to competition law. Its fun to share a few such discoveries, just to spread the word about them.

An old but interesting video which was found during one of these surfing sessions was this one below. As part of our 25th  Anniversary celebration the Federalist Society presented a full-day Conference on June 26, 2007, honouring Judge Robert H. Bork and his contributions to the law. The hon’ble Judge has always been of the view that “antitrust enforcement had overzealously applied the law in a manner that led to the protection of inefficient firms and the sanctioning of efficient firms, to the ultimate detriment of consumers. This form of interference in the free market, he argued, raised consumer prices by supporting flagging companies in order to maintain the perception of competition.” The panel discusses his views and their effect on anti-trust law and enforcement over time.

It is a bit long, but worth the watch.

Google’s Anti-Trust Woes: An Update

Google CEO Eric Schmidt testified yesterday before eight members of the Antitrust, Competition and Consumer Rights Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary claiming that Google had fully complied with U.S. anti-trust laws.

The written testimony can be found here.

Wikileaks + Competition

The Wikileaks crusade for transparency has even managed to envelop the competition sector. Check out the article on the Wikileaks Release of a  U. S. Diplomatic Cable About the Oracle-Sun Merger Deal.

The diplomatic cable claims that U. S. government pressured the European Union to approve the Oracle-Sun merger deal.

Answers to questions raised in Authors Guild v. Google Inc.

I have finally written a reply to my previous post on Authors Guild v. Google Inc.: Some Questions on the Ruling and the Proposed Settlement. It can be found here.

There are some who may complain that there is a certain amount of neglect for this Blog, for which I apologise. It has become increasingly difficult to take out time to write new posts with the gruelling new College schedule.

Authors Guild v. Google Inc.: Some Questions on the Ruling and the Proposed Settlement

I have written a post titled “Authors Guild v. Google Inc. : Some Questions on the Ruling on the Proposed Settlement”   for the Indian Law and Technology Blog. In this post, I have raised certain questions related to the judgement and the status of free websites under competition law. I hope to find some answers in another post.

Please click here to view the post.

Google and its Anti – Trust Woes

On 31st march, 2011, Microsoft Corporation filed a formal complaint with the European anti – trust regulators about Google’s abuse of dominant position in the European internet market and against various anti – competitive practices engaged by it in the relevant market.

This is isn’t exactly the first time Google has been accused of violating anti – trust laws around the globe. In fact, Microsoft along with two other rivals had only last year lodged another complaint with the EU, a matter currently under investigation. Over and above this, in March this year, a U.S. District court found an agreement between Google and the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers for the scanning and digital redistribution of books in its ebookstore to be in violation of U.S. anti – trust laws and asked the parties to renegotiate the agreement. Then again, in 2009, tradecomet.com filed a complaint alleging that Google manipulates its auctions on its “adwords” program to favour certain advertisers like business.com over others, again violating anti – trust laws. And before that, in 2008, the U.S. department of justice launched an investigation into the two-week test agreement between Yahoo Inc. and Google to deliver relevant Web advertising from Google Inc. alongside its own search results. And this list is by no means exhaustive.

The question is, why Google?? According to Susan Wojcicki, Senior Vice President of Product Management and Vice President of Engineering at Google, writing on the company blog:

“Given our success and the disruptive nature of our business, it’s entirely understandable that we’ve caused unease among other companies and caught the attention of regulators.”

Till a large extent she is right. But a few of these complaints and suits have raised some very genuine and relevant questions against certain trade practices followed by Google Inc.

In fact, even in India, a complaint was registered against Google before the CCI on, again, its “adwords” program. In Eximcorp India Pvt. Ltd. v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. (Case no. 68/2010), the complainant/informant, a subscriber to the above mentioned service, alleged that the business practices of Google for such service were discriminatory in nature, and an abuse of dominant position. It also alleged that the bidding process introduced by Google to place advertisements on “adwords” was non-transparent. While the facts of initiation of  the complaint were not directly pertaining to an issue concerning competition law, what is surprising is that the commission in a three page decision concluded that there was no prima – facie evidence to make out a case for further investigation by the Director General into the matter. The issues raised were ones directly pertaining to competition law, and one would have expected the commission to take closer look at the matter taking into consideration Google’s reputation around the world against anti – trust law. Makes one wonder whether the CCI is even aware of the various suits and complaints filed against the most dominant search engine company in the world!!