Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on Android operating system and applications
Published 28th April 2016
The European Commission has informed Google of its preliminary view that the company has, in breach of EU antitrust rules, abused its dominant position by imposing restrictions on Android device manufacturers and mobile network operators.
The Commission's preliminary view is that Google has implemented a strategy on mobile devices to preserve and strengthen its dominance in general internet search. First, the practices mean that Google Search is pre-installed and set as the default, or exclusive, search service on most Android devices sold in Europe. Second, the practices appear to close off ways for rival search engines to access the market, via competing mobile browsers and operating systems. In addition, they also seem to harm consumers by stifling competition and restricting innovation in the wider mobile space. The Commission's concerns are outlined (de) in a Statement of Objections addressed to Google and its parent company, Alphabet. Sending a Statement of Objections does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
The Commission opened proceedings (de) in April 2015 concerning Google's conduct as regards the Android operating system and applications. At this stage, the Commission considers that Google is dominant in the markets for general internet search services, licensable smart mobile operating systems and app stores for the Android mobile operating system. Google generally holds market shares of more than 90% in each of these markets in the European Economic Area (EEA). In Statement of Objections, the Commission alleges that Google has breached EU antitrust rules by:
– requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Google's Chrome browser and requiring them to set Google Search as default search service on their devices, as a condition to license certain Google proprietary apps;
– preventing manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices running on competing operating systems based on the Android open source code;
– giving financial incentives to manufacturers and mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices.
The Commission believes that these business practices may lead to a further consolidation of the dominant position of Google Search in general internet search services. It is also concerned that these practices affect the ability of competing mobile browsers to compete with Google Chrome, and that they hinder the development of operating systems based on the Android open source code and the opportunities they would offer for the development of new apps and services. In the Commission's preliminary view, this conduct ultimately harms consumers because they are not given as wide a choice as possible and because it stifles innovation.
The Commission's investigation showed that it is commercially important for manufacturers of devices using the Android operating system to pre-install on those devices the Play Store, Google's app store for Android. In its contracts with manufacturers, Google has made the licensing of the Play Store on Android devices conditional on Google Search being pre-installed and set as default search service. As a result, rival search engines are not able to become the default search service on the significant majority of devices sold in the EEA. It has also reduced the incentives of manufacturers to pre-install competing search apps, as well as the incentives of consumers to download such apps. Similarly, in its contracts with manufacturers Google also required the pre-installation of its Chrome mobile browser in return for licensing the Play Store or Google Search. Thereby, Google has also ensured that its mobile browser is pre-installed on the significant majority of devices sold in the EEA. Browsers represent an important entry point for search queries on mobile devices. Thus, by reducing manufacturers' incentives to pre-install competing browser apps and consumers' incentives to download those apps, competition in both mobile browsers and general search has been adversely affected.
Android is an open-source system, meaning that it can be freely used and developed by anyone to create a modified mobile operating system (a so-called "Android fork"). However, if a manufacturer wishes to pre-install Google proprietary apps, including Google Play Store and Google Search, on any of its devices, Google requires it to enter into an "Anti-Fragmentation Agreement" that commits it not to sell devices running on Android forks. Google's conduct has had a direct impact on consumers, as it has denied them access to innovative smart mobile devices based on alternative, potentially superior, versions of the Android operating system. For example, the Commission has found evidence that Google's conduct prevented manufacturers from selling smart mobile devices based on a competing Android fork which had the potential of becoming a credible alternative to the Google Android operating system. In doing so, Google has also closed off an important way for its competitors to introduce apps and services, in particular general search services, which could be pre-installed on Android forks.
Google has granted significant financial incentives to some of the largest smartphone and tablet manufacturers as well as mobile network operators on condition that they exclusively pre-install Google Search on their devices. Google has thereby reduced the incentives of manufacturers and mobile network operators to pre-install competing search services on the devices they market. In fact, the Commission has evidence that the exclusivity condition affected whether certain device manufacturers and mobile network operators pre-installed competing search services.
Google v Yandex anticompetitive battle in Russia
Commission fined Google €1.49 billion for abusive practices in online advertising
Can Google and Yandex manipulate search results "manually"?
The new law to force Google and Apple to share data with Russia
Will Apple, Google and Microsoft stay in Russian market?
Commission sends Statements of Objections to Valve and five videogame publishers on "geo-blocking"…
Google tried to challenge Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service's decision and failed
Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service established administrative delict committed by Google
Commission opened investigation into Broadcom
Right holders want to make search engines to hide pirate sites in search results
Rationale for European commission's proposal of a regulation to increase fairness and transparency…
Russian publishing house Eksmo failed to shut down Yandex only because it can find Rutracker.org
Apple and Google products can be forced out of Russian market
Google can face huge fine in Russia for anticompetitive behaviour
What right holders are so concerned about in Russia in relation to new features of legal services?
Published in Uncategorised
Previous Post Priorities for ICT standards
Next Post EU e-Government action plan
Use or lose the right to file a copyright infringement lawsuit
Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright, no author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates
Section 512 report – Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
The creation, curation, and provision of timely and accurate music lyrics transcriptions is not protected by the Copyright Act
The acting reel for casting purposes is a fair use of the film
Whether the Copyright Office can help stakeholders identify and adopt standard technical measures without congressional action?
Public views on AI and IP policy
SWD IA on the EU copyright modernization – Preservation and archiving
Third edition of USA copyright office compendium – audiovisual work copyright registration issues
No substantial similarity between tv shows Empire and Cream
Research on illegal IPTV in EU – criminal enforcement and customs measures, administrative procedures
EU Action plan to identify 5 key focus areas for IP
Technological Changes Since the 1990s Have Changed the Landscape in which Section 512 Operates
Anna Záborská's amendments to proposed regulation on online intermediation services
When does the Fourteenth Amendment care about copyright infringement?
Revisions to section 512 should take into account differences within and among stakeholder classes
If the complaint is insufficient as to only the registration ground, if shouldn't be dismissed with prejudice
SWD IA on the EU copyright modernization – Out-of-commerce works
Third edition of USA copyright office compendium – audiovisual works
Whether Section 120(a) limits the copyright protection of a PGS work that is physically connected to an architectural work?
Research on illegal IPTV in EU – Civil enforcement measures, injunctions
If copyright "is not capable of 'existing independently' as a work of art, it is not protectable under copyright law
Section 512 report – Notice-and-Takedown Process
A copyright sublicense could be implied in the absence of an express grant
Litigation isn't the kind of continuous, public usage of a trademark
If you want to stay tuned by email you can subscribe now!
Categories Select Category Audio-visual Broadcasting Cable & Satellite CMO rules collective management Communication to the public Competition Consideration Copyright Digital Digital Environment Distribution DMCA Enforcement EU Exceptions and limitations Fair use geo-blocking Geographical indication Intellectual property Internet Interpretation Law Law review Legal proposal Litigation Media News aggregators News publishers Online platforms Parallel import Payola Private copying levy Research Royalties Russian law Safe Harbor Telecom Trade Secret Trademark Uncategorised VAT and other taxes Work of art Works similarity