Android and Forking Restrictions: On the Hidden Closedness of “Open”

S. Vezzoso
{"title":"Android and Forking Restrictions: On the Hidden Closedness of “Open”","authors":"S. Vezzoso","doi":"10.7559/mclawreview.2018.323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Google Android Decision was announced by the European Commission on 18 July 2018. The Commission found that three restrictions related to Android and Android apps that Google imposed on mobile device manufacturers and network operators infringed Article 102 TFEU. These restrictions, according to the Commission, “have enabled Google to use Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine”. The Android Decision is not yet public. The prohibition of Google’s tying practices on the Android platform has already attracted significant attention by early commentators, also due to the proximity to other high profile antitrust cases. Against the backdrop of the still limited information available, the article proposes some first reflections on another conduct sanctioned by the Android Decision, namely Google’s forking restriction imposed on device manufacturers. In particular, the article describes a possible reasoning underpinning Google’s anti-fragmentation justification based on the economics of two-sided platforms. This justification stems from a purely “transactional view” of platforms. The article concludes that this view is only partially suitable to provide an accurate description of complex innovation ecosystems for the purposes of competition policy enforcement.","PeriodicalId":309646,"journal":{"name":"Market and Competition Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Market and Competition Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7559/mclawreview.2018.323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Google Android Decision was announced by the European Commission on 18 July 2018. The Commission found that three restrictions related to Android and Android apps that Google imposed on mobile device manufacturers and network operators infringed Article 102 TFEU. These restrictions, according to the Commission, “have enabled Google to use Android as a vehicle to cement the dominance of its search engine”. The Android Decision is not yet public. The prohibition of Google’s tying practices on the Android platform has already attracted significant attention by early commentators, also due to the proximity to other high profile antitrust cases. Against the backdrop of the still limited information available, the article proposes some first reflections on another conduct sanctioned by the Android Decision, namely Google’s forking restriction imposed on device manufacturers. In particular, the article describes a possible reasoning underpinning Google’s anti-fragmentation justification based on the economics of two-sided platforms. This justification stems from a purely “transactional view” of platforms. The article concludes that this view is only partially suitable to provide an accurate description of complex innovation ecosystems for the purposes of competition policy enforcement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Android与分叉限制:论“开放”背后隐藏的封闭性
欧盟委员会于2018年7月18日宣布了谷歌安卓的决定。欧盟委员会发现,谷歌对移动设备制造商和网络运营商施加的与安卓和安卓应用相关的三项限制违反了第102条TFEU。欧盟委员会表示,这些限制“使谷歌得以利用安卓作为巩固其搜索引擎主导地位的工具”。Android的决定尚未公开。禁止谷歌在Android平台上捆绑操作的做法已经引起了早期评论员的极大关注,这也是因为它与其他引人注目的反垄断案件接近。在现有信息仍然有限的背景下,本文提出了对Android裁决所制裁的另一种行为的一些初步思考,即谷歌对设备制造商施加的分叉限制。特别是,这篇文章描述了基于双边平台经济学的谷歌反碎片化辩护的可能推理。这种理由纯粹是基于对平台的“交易观点”。本文的结论是,这种观点仅部分适用于为竞争政策执行提供复杂创新生态系统的准确描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Big Data Competition and Market Power The Very Essence of the Internal Market Freedoms State Aids and Tax rulings: an assessment of the Commission’s recent decisional practice The Role of Innovation in the Analysis of Abuse of Dominance in Digital Markets: The Analysis of Chosen Practices of Google Search Room to Manoeuvre for Member States: Issues for Decision on the Occasion of the Transposition of the Damages Directive
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1