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
UK’s CMA Investigates Education Software Company for Market Abuse
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Schumer Urges FTC Caution on Chevron’s $53B Hess Deal Over Gas Price Fears
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Amazon Urges US Judge to Block FTC Probe into Data Preservation
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado Makes History: First State to Enact Comprehensive AI Legislation
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Class Action Settlement Reached in Cheerleading Monopoly
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI