When competition authorities struggle to assess abusive practices by online multi-sided platforms, the issue does not appear to be defining markets or determining market power; rather, the difficulty is finding a fitting theory of abuse. In the search for such theories, one candidate has been overlooked: margin squeeze. This infringement has for the most part been confined to the telecom sector, but its potential reaches beyond. Indeed, the conduct of online platforms could force margin squeeze out of retirement. This article starts from the foundations of margin squeeze theory, laying out the core principles and addressing possible misconceptions. The article then investigates whether margin squeeze theory could be applied to online platforms with the help of three case studies (involving app stores, search engines and online marketplaces). Before concluding, it contemplates the idea of neutrality underlying margin squeeze and related policies such as network neutrality.
{"title":"Online Platforms and Vertical Integration: The Return of Margin Squeeze?","authors":"Friso Bostoen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3075237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3075237","url":null,"abstract":"When competition authorities struggle to assess abusive practices by online multi-sided platforms, the issue does not appear to be defining markets or determining market power; rather, the difficulty is finding a fitting theory of abuse. In the search for such theories, one candidate has been overlooked: margin squeeze. This infringement has for the most part been confined to the telecom sector, but its potential reaches beyond. Indeed, the conduct of online platforms could force margin squeeze out of retirement. This article starts from the foundations of margin squeeze theory, laying out the core principles and addressing possible misconceptions. The article then investigates whether margin squeeze theory could be applied to online platforms with the help of three case studies (involving app stores, search engines and online marketplaces). Before concluding, it contemplates the idea of neutrality underlying margin squeeze and related policies such as network neutrality.","PeriodicalId":295410,"journal":{"name":"Stockholm University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129560515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This dissertation addresses some of the data protection challenges that have arisen from globalization, technological progress, terrorism and seamless cross-border flows of personal data. The focu ...
{"title":"Legal Implications of Data Mining: Assessing the European Union's Data Protection Principles in Light of the United States Government's National Intelligence Data Mining Practices","authors":"Liane Colonna","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2924541","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2924541","url":null,"abstract":"This dissertation addresses some of the data protection challenges that have arisen from globalization, technological progress, terrorism and seamless cross-border flows of personal data. The focu ...","PeriodicalId":295410,"journal":{"name":"Stockholm University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"172 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114437106","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-12-29DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_8
B. Lundqvist
{"title":"Big Data, Open Data, Privacy Regulations, Intellectual Property and Competition Law in an Internet of Things World","authors":"B. Lundqvist","doi":"10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":295410,"journal":{"name":"Stockholm University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126856486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This work focuses on neutrality as a discourse in the 20th century. I have looked at a number of doctrinal texts and read them both as legal arguments and as texts with philosophical and political ...
{"title":"Impartial or Uninvolved? The Anatomy of 20th Century Doctrine on the Law of Neutrality","authors":"Pål Wrange","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3119006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3119006","url":null,"abstract":"This work focuses on neutrality as a discourse in the 20th century. I have looked at a number of doctrinal texts and read them both as legal arguments and as texts with philosophical and political ...","PeriodicalId":295410,"journal":{"name":"Stockholm University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131850976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The digital economy is all around us in our every-day lives and we rely on digital products more and more. Approximately 2 billion people are connected to the internet worldwide – a figure that is said to increase to 3 billion in the near future. The European Commission recognises that the digital economy ‘… is the single most important driver of innovation, competitiveness and growth, and it holds huge potential for European entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)’. The importance placed on the digital economy has recently been emphasised by the attention granted to the Google Shopping case, in which the European Commission found Google to have abused its dominant position as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to its own comparison shopping service. In doing so it denied other companies to compete on merits and innovate as well as denying European consumers a genuine choice of services. Interestingly, European businesses are lagging behind those from other regions in the world in their exploitation of the digital economy. The European Commission is therefore intent on providing support in various forms to its own companies and improve their competitiveness globally. One of the many ways to encourage growth is by ensuring that there is a strong competition policy in place that can boost competition and innovation. The challenge is whether the competition rules (i.e. Article 101 and 102TFEU and the Merger Regulation) are still fit for purpose when dealing with the digital economy? That is, are we able to continue to make use of the traditional competition law tools with respect to the digital economy? Especially, when the digital economy appears to present new and different market characteristics that test our traditional understanding of competition within a market. The digital economy has been branded as having a ‘competition-to-dominance trait’, meaning that the market characteristics lend themselves to ‘automatically’ creating market power for the company that fulfils certain conditions. Therefore at the heart of this paper is the question, should market power in relation to unilateral conduct be defined differently in the digital economy, under the notion that the digital economy is an untameable shrew within the current competition rules.
{"title":"Taming the Shrew: There's No Need for a New Market Power Definition for the Digital Economy","authors":"H. Schmidt","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3048266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3048266","url":null,"abstract":"The digital economy is all around us in our every-day lives and we rely on digital products more and more. Approximately 2 billion people are connected to the internet worldwide – a figure that is said to increase to 3 billion in the near future. \u0000The European Commission recognises that the digital economy ‘… is the single most important driver of innovation, competitiveness and growth, and it holds huge potential for European entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)’. \u0000The importance placed on the digital economy has recently been emphasised by the attention granted to the Google Shopping case, in which the European Commission found Google to have abused its dominant position as a search engine by giving an illegal advantage to its own comparison shopping service. In doing so it denied other companies to compete on merits and innovate as well as denying European consumers a genuine choice of services. Interestingly, European businesses are lagging behind those from other regions in the world in their exploitation of the digital economy. The European Commission is therefore intent on providing support in various forms to its own companies and improve their competitiveness globally. One of the many ways to encourage growth is by ensuring that there is a strong competition policy in place that can boost competition and innovation. The challenge is whether the competition rules (i.e. Article 101 and 102TFEU and the Merger Regulation) are still fit for purpose when dealing with the digital economy? That is, are we able to continue to make use of the traditional competition law tools with respect to the digital economy? Especially, when the digital economy appears to present new and different market characteristics that test our traditional understanding of competition within a market. The digital economy has been branded as having a ‘competition-to-dominance trait’, meaning that the market characteristics lend themselves to ‘automatically’ creating market power for the company that fulfils certain conditions. Therefore at the heart of this paper is the question, should market power in relation to unilateral conduct be defined differently in the digital economy, under the notion that the digital economy is an untameable shrew within the current competition rules.","PeriodicalId":295410,"journal":{"name":"Stockholm University Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129353648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：