US DoJ rep moves to blunt Europe's action on MS

EU case wouldn't play in the States, allegedly...

US assistant attorney general and DoJ head Charles James was in Brussels fingering (if not quite rattling yet) sabres last week. The "theory of monopoly leveraging," which appears to underly some of the European antitrust case against Microsoft, has "very little standing in the US" and "has been largely if not entirely rejected by our courts."

The theoretical side is primarily relevant to academics and judgment spotters, but insofar as James is arguing that the European Commission is poised to implement laws against Microsoft that would not and could not apply in the States, it has some immediate relevance to the rest of us. Monopoly leveraging is essentially the use of an existing monopoly in one market to leverage your way into another. Thus, in Europe's case one of the primary concerns about Microsoft was that it was using its desktop monopoly to leverage dominance in the European server market.

As the investigation progressed it became clear (well, as clear as it ever can be if you're reading the occasional smoke-signal from the Competition Commission) that Europe was also considering Media Player and other aspects of integration/forced bundling.

So, if Europe imposes tough measures on Microsoft which the US authorities deem to be based in the theory of monopoly leveraging, and the theory of monopoly leveraging has been widely discredited in the US, then here we go down the massive US-EU antitrust/trade war route. We think that's what Mr James is suggesting.

But hold hard, you say, if this theory has very little standing in the US, how come Mr James' little chicks at the DoJ (prior to his arrival, we'll own) successfully made numerous charges against Microsoft stick, and Mr James and his boss John Ashcroft have negotiated a settlement "that will put an end to Microsoft's unlawful conduct, bring effective relief to the marketplace and ensure that consumers will have more choices."?

This may be where the wretched theoretical stuff comes into play. Microsoft was indeed pinched for unlawful tying of IE code into Windows, but was not exactly nailed for attempted monopolisation of the browser market via leveraging of its Windows monopoly, as such. You may recall, unless you nodded off slightly before we did, that the appeals court judges tossed out some of Judge Jackson's conclusions on the browser market because the DoJ had not established a clear definition of the browser market. And a small historical artefact reminds us that, a long time ago in a courtroom far, far away, Jackson threw out a portion of the states' suit against Microsoft observing that several courts had "either rejected the theory outright or expressed extreme doubts about its viability."

Jackson's phrasing then (in 1998) is interesting in light of his subsequent observations that US law and precedent was not adequate to cover the issues he was dealing with, and that the courts would therefore have to modernise them (we precis massively). But his argument during the case was that the law should be evolved, whereas Charles James now seems to be suggesting something on the lines of 'we've considered that one, it didn't work, so let's throw it out and carry on with what we've got.'

For a "largely rejected" theory, however, it's been making quite a bit of the running in matters of interest to us in recent years. It figured in the Microsoft trial (you'll find Franklin Fisher's views on the subject here, although the frivolous Reg is far more intrigued by his Janis Joplin's Yearbook and the Theory of Damages) and it also reared its head in the Intel-Intergraph and Bristol v Microsoft cases. In none of these, however, was it clearly established or clearly rejected.

One of the most recent decisions touching on the subject was in Virgin Atlantic v British Airways, where the appeals court rejected Virgin's claim of monopoly leveraging, "and questioned whether the leading court decision articulating the theory of 'monopoly leveraging' (Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979)) remained good law."

Now, we quite clearly have some US courts wondering if monopoly leveraging theory works, and can be effectively applied by the law, but it's a little bit of a leap from this to "largely rejected." So we feel a Theory of Dubya Antitrust Lawyering coming on.

Antitrust law is complicated, involved, expensive and tricky to apply. It's a tinkerer's and inteferer's kind of law, which if pursued relentlessly by Big Government would lead to the stifling of innovation and the destruction of competitive edge. (Despite this being Microsoft's contention, largely, this is true, but only if it's relentlessly pursued to its illogical conclusions. The counter is that not doing anything about it at all will result in widescale abuses, and that therefore the law must do something) In saying the theory of monopoly leveraging has been largely rejected by US courts, James is speaking not exactly the truth, but what will become the truth because of the way his office implements (or not) antitrust law. He is expressing an intention to get the hell out of the kitchen, as if we hadn't noticed that already. Given the overall 'lay off' approach of the current administration, it's hardly surprising.

Where does that leave the European case? Well, it's not absolutely clear to what extent this is based on monopoly leveraging theory in the first place. In the broad sense that Microsoft is accused of leveraging its desktop monopoly to wrest server business from the Unix market it might be, but if it is viewed as having denied rival vendors sufficient data for them to be able to interoperate with Windows desktops (which it is), then we needn't necessarily worry out heads about monopoly leveraging, because that would be clear, protectionist, anticompetitive conduct. Would James argue that action couldn't be taken on this because the conduct hadn't resulted in a monopoly, yet? We hope not.

Mario Monti and his merry persons are highly unlikely to just say, 'oh all right Chuck,' call the whole thing off and rubber-stamp the DoJ-MS settlement instead, so James' sabre-rattling won't have been entirely successful. But what then? The troubling thing about what James is saying may depend on how far he and the US administration intend to take it. If it is the case that he intends only to deal with existing monopolies, and that companies with such monopolies will be able to start with an effective clean sheet in each new market (no monopoly by definition, therefore no case), we may well have a problem here. But this will basically be a crystalisation of a transatlantic problem that already exists.

Even prior to the arrival of the current crowd, US antitrust authorities didn't like the idea of messing with offences that hadn't happened yet. In its response to the public comment on the consent decree, the DoJ wrote "Obviously, the Department cannot, in a Consent Decree, proscribe every conceivable kind of anticompetitive conduct in which a firm might engage in the future. It certainly cannot allege in a complaint anti-competitive conduct that has not yet occurred." (from Red Herring, in an oldish but interesting take on the subject) European authorities, on the other hand, do. That's why the DoJ case against Microsoft was about past sins, whereas the European one considers possible future monopolies. So, plus ca change? ®

Other stories you might like

  • Walmart accused of turning blind eye to transfer fraud totaling millions of dollars
    Store giant brands watchdog's lawsuit 'factually misguided, legally flawed'

    The FTC has sued Walmart, claiming it turned a blind eye to fraudsters using its money transfer services to con folks out of "hundreds of millions of dollars."

    In a lawsuit [PDF] filed Tuesday, the US regulator claimed the superstore giant is "well aware" of telemarketing fraudsters and other scammers convincing victims to part with their hard-earned cash via its services, with the money being funneled to domestic and international crime rings.

    Walmart is accused of allowing these fraudulent money transfers to continue, failing to warn people to be on their guard, and failing to adopt policies and train employees on how to prevent these types of hustles.

    Continue reading
  • HPE unveils Arm-based ProLiant server for cloud-native workloads
    Looks like it went with Ampere – which means a certain Reg writer lost a bet

    Arm has a champion in the shape of HPE, which has added a server powered by the British chip designer's CPU cores to its ProLiant portfolio, aimed at cloud-native workloads for service providers and enterprise customers alike.

    Announced at the IT titan's Discover 2022 conference in Las Vegas, the HPE ProLiant RL300 Gen11 server is the first in a series of such systems powered by Ampere's Altra and Altra Max processors, which feature up to 80 and 128 Arm-designed Neoverse cores, respectively.

    The system is set to be available during Q3 2022, so sometime in the next three months, and is basically an enterprise-grade ProLiant server – but with an Arm CPU at its core instead of the more usual Intel Xeon or AMD Epyc X86 chips.

    Continue reading
  • US weather forecasters power up latest supercomputers to keep you out of the rain
    NOAA makes it rain for HPE, AMD

    Predicting the weather is a notoriously tricky enterprise, but that’s never held back America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). After more than two years of development, the agency brought a pair of supercomputers online this week that it says will enable more accurate forecast models.

    Developed and maintained by General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) under an eight-year contract, the Cactus and Dogwood supers — named after the fauna native to the machines' homes in Phoenix, Arizona, and Manassas, Virginia, respectively — will support larger, higher-resolution models than previously possible. The cost to build, house, and support and operate these machines, now operational, will cost $150 million over the next five years, we understand.

    “People are looking for the best possible weather forecast information that they can get,” Brian Gross, director of the Environmental Modeling Center for the National Weather Service, told The Register.

    Continue reading
  • Google said to be taking steps to keep political campaign emails out of Gmail spam bin
    Just after Big Tech comes under fire for left and right-leaning message filters

    Google has reportedly asked the US Federal Election Commission for its blessing to exempt political campaign solicitations from spam filtering.

    The elections watchdog declined to confirm receiving the supposed Google filing, obtained by Axios, though a spokesperson said the FEC can be expected to publish an advisory opinion upon review if Google made such a submission.

    Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. If the web giant's alleged plan gets approved, political campaign emails that aren't deemed malicious or illegal will arrive in Gmail users' inboxes with a notice asking recipients to approve continued delivery.

    Continue reading
  • China is trolling rare-earth miners online and the Pentagon isn't happy
    Beijing-linked Dragonbridge flames biz building Texas plant for Uncle Sam

    The US Department of Defense said it's investigating Chinese disinformation campaigns against rare earth mining and processing companies — including one targeting Lynas Rare Earths, which has a $30 million contract with the Pentagon to build a plant in Texas.

    Earlier today, Mandiant published research that analyzed a Beijing-linked influence operation, dubbed Dragonbridge, that used thousands of fake accounts across dozens of social media platforms, including Facebook, TikTok and Twitter, to spread misinformation about rare earth companies seeking to expand production in the US to the detriment of China, which wants to maintain its global dominance in that industry. 

    "The Department of Defense is aware of the recent disinformation campaign, first reported by Mandiant, against Lynas Rare Earth Ltd., a rare earth element firm seeking to establish production capacity in the United States and partner nations, as well as other rare earth mining companies," according to a statement by Uncle Sam. "The department has engaged the relevant interagency stakeholders and partner nations to assist in reviewing the matter.

    Continue reading
  • California's attempt to protect kids online could end adults' internet anonymity
    Websites may be forced to verify ages of visitors unless changes made

    California lawmakers met in Sacramento today to discuss, among other things, proposed legislation to protect children online. The bill, AB2273, known as The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, would require websites to verify the ages of visitors.

    Critics of the legislation contend this requirement threatens the privacy of adults and the ability to use the internet anonymously, in California and likely elsewhere, because of the role the Golden State's tech companies play on the internet.

    "First, the bill pretextually claims to protect children, but it will change the Internet for everyone," said Eric Goldman, Santa Clara University School of Law professor, in a blog post. "In order to determine who is a child, websites and apps will have to authenticate the age of ALL consumers before they can use the service. No one wants this."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022