Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2017-03-28 16:03
President Trump’s impressive nominee to head the DOJ Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim, enters the global antitrust stage when one company, America’s Alphabet-Google, has been under near constant antitrust investigation around the world for a decade and faces multiple pending antitrust enforcement actions.
What is the global and U.S. antitrust community to glean from this nomination?
Mr. Delrahim’s background speaks volumes, especially if one believes the adage, people are policy.
Overall, Makan Delrahim is a widely-respected, veteran antitrust official, attorney, expert, and professor, with high-level antitrust experience that check all the right boxes, organizationally, functionally, and professionally.
Mr. Delrahim’s antitrust-specific experience is outstanding.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2017-03-23 17:52
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, March 23, 2017, Contact: Scott Cleland 703-217-2407
Senate CRA Vote Rescinding FCC’s Broadband Privacy Order Paves Way for House Passage and Has Congress Prioritizing Consumer Privacy Protection Over Net Neutrality
WASHINGTON D.C. – The following may be attributed to Scott Cleland, Chairman of NetCompetition:
“The CRA was made for correcting big agency mistakes just like the FCC’s Broadband Privacy Order, which made consumer privacy protection worse not better, because it prioritized technology over people, net neutrality over consumer privacy protection, the FCC over the FTC, and the interests of edge platforms over the interests of American consumers.”
“The most embarrassing part of the FCC’s broadband privacy order is that it does not really protect consumers’ privacy at all. That’s because effectively it only requires ISPs to keep certain information private when every other entity on the Internet does not have to keep private that exact same information.”
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2017-03-23 17:00
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2017-03-20 15:51
As Googleopoly has done around much of the world for many years, Google is now twisting arms in Australia’s government to provide Google with blanket protection from Australians’ copyright infringement lawsuits against Google for aiding and abetting in the piracy of Australians’ copyrighted content.
The piece makes fun of Google’s claims that without protection, Google won’t have the financial incentive to innovate.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2017-03-17 13:33
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Mon, 2017-03-13 13:01
Has a new day dawned for U.S. antitrust scrutiny of Alphabet-Google?
The evidence is overwhelming that Alphabet-Google has broadly extended its search and search monopolies into several more markets, and that it has done so anti-competitively in the four years since the FTC chaotically shut down its search, search advertising, and Android investigations in January 2013.
The question here is will Google’s many monopolies enjoy no FTC antitrust enforcement over the next four years of the Trump Administration, like Google apparently enjoyed in the last four years of the Obama Administration?
To set a baseline of what has happened since the FTC apparently stopped enforcing antitrust law against Google, its instructive to remember where Google stood at that time with the FTC, via brief conclusions from the FTC staff investigators and then from the FTC commissioners.
In October 2012, the FTC Staff Report said:
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2017-03-07 23:01
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gets it that 5G wireless is a gamechanger for the rationale underlying the Wheeler-FCC’s Title II Open Internet order and net neutrality policy.
Fast-changing markets and new competitive realities are a huge threat to the viability of the previous-FCC’s Title II Open Internet Order and net neutrality policy because they are based on the unsupported and unproven assumption that competitive ISPs command monopoly market power.
FCC Chairman Pai enjoys a plethora of new competitive evidence that enables this FCC to reverse the previous FCC’s Open Internet order, based on recent tectonic market changes, new competitive realities, and Chairman Pai’s return to FCC policymaking based on real world evidence, reason and the law.
Two years is an eternity in Internet time.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2017-03-02 19:03
Let me start by defending Alphabet-Google’s right and decision to sue Uber for what it says was the “unlawful misappropriation of our trade secrets, patent infringement, and unfair competition,” by way of the alleged unauthorized downloading “over 14,000 highly confidential and proprietary design files” from Alphabet-Google-Waymo’s work on its proprietary self-driving car LiDAR hardware sensors.
I support every property owner’s right to protect their property from theft.
That said, when Alphabet-Google, arguably America’s worst corporate IP thief (see below), sues Uber for IP theft, it reminds us of the adage that there is “no honor among thieves.”
This appears to be a teachable moment for Uber’s legal defense team.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Tue, 2017-02-28 13:48
New Trump FCC Chair Ajit Pai’s keynote speech on “Building the 5G Economy” at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona today spotlighted to the communications world that the U.S. FCC is going in a very different policy direction than that of the previous FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who just happens to be speaking at the same event as a private citizen to a break-out session on “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
The fact that they are both at the largest communications event in the world delivering starkly divergent messages and visions, on the same day, provides an instructive and illuminating opportunity to juxtapose their contrasting policy approaches.
Submitted by Scott Cleland on Thu, 2017-02-23 10:10
Defenders of the previous FCC’s Title II Open Internet Order appear afraid to have a free and open discussion about how Title II net neutrality affects Americanconsumers.
Like a poker player’s “tell,” leading Title II net neutrality defenders tellingly resort first to ad hominem attacks in challenging the financial motives of most everyone that is making the pro-consumer case for overturning the previous FCC’s Open Internet order.
Why are they leading with ad hominem attacks?
As most understand, ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those who know the facts are not on their side of the argument.