Posted by Social Science Research Network
Android – Is There a Viable Monopolization Case?
By Stephen Houck
This paper considers the viability of a Sherman Act § 2 enforcement action in respect of Google’s Android operating system. It discusses the applicability of the D.C. Circuit’s 2001 Microsoft opinion in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in anticompetitive conduct to maintain its Windows operating system monopoly. The paper explains why, despite some superficial similarities, the facts that gave rise to liability in Microsoft are different in crucial respects from those pertaining to Android. The paper concludes 1) that Google lacks monopoly power in a properly defined market in which Android competes; and 2) that Google has not engaged in the type of anticompetitive conduct condemned in Microsoft. The facts underlying Microsoft and the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning strongly suggest that an enforcement action in the United States is unlikely to succeed notwithstanding the European Commission’s July 2018 Android decision.
Featured News
CMA Fines Tereos £25,000 for Failing to Provide Key Information in Merger Probe
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Google Defends Its Role in Online Advertising Market in Antitrust Trial
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Musk’s X Requests Brazil Supreme Court to Resume Service After Shutdown
Sep 26, 2024 by
CPI
Visa Acquires AI Firm Featurespace to Enhance Fraud Prevention
Sep 26, 2024 by
CPI
Visa Gears Up for Legal Fight with DOJ Over Debit Card Monopoly Allegations
Sep 26, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh