“(a) by bundling Google Search with Google Maps, thereby depriving users of an undistorted choice of online mapping services; giving Google Maps an unfair advantage over Streetmap and/or producing discriminatory effects; and (b) by displaying a thumbnail map obtained from Google Maps at or near the top of search results pages whilst displaying results relating to other providers of online mapping services by way of blue links and/or lower down the rankings.”
“The concept of abuse is an objective concept relating to the behaviour of an undertaking in a dominant position which is such as to influence the structure of a market where, as a result of the very presence of the undertaking in question, the degree of competition is weakened and which, through recourse to methods different from those which condition normal competition in products or services on the basis of the transactions of commercial operators, has the effect of hindering the maintenance of the degree of competition still existing in the market or the growth of that competition.”
“… irrespective of the reasons for which it has such a dominant position, the undertaking concerned has a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition on the common market.”
“The statutory examples, and those developed by subsequent case-law, are ways in which the basic wrong can be committed, but at all times an eye must be kept on the basic wrong itself.”
“… like other competition rules laid down in the Treaty, art.81 EC aims to protect not only the interests of competitors or of consumers, but also the structure of the market and, in so doing, competition as such.”
“The Commission therefore had ground to state … that there was a reasonable likelihood that tying Windows and Windows Media Player would lead to a lessening of competition so that the maintenance of an effective competition structure would not be ensured in the foreseeable future. It must be made clear that the Commission did not state that the tying would lead to the elimination of all competition on the market for streaming media players. Microsoft’s argument that, several years after the beginning of the abuse at issue, a number of third-party media players are still present on the market therefore does not invalidate the Commission’s argument.”
“Background The current incarnation of the maps onebox suffers from a number of issues: The current incarnation of the maps onebox suffers from a number of issues: 1. It provides a link to a map, instead of rendering a map in the onebox. 2. Its triggering heuristics are in need of dramatic improvement. The most mortifying example of this phenomenon is that the query “2 dead guys in LA” triggers the maps onebox for Los Angeles, CA. 3. We are not yet able to geocode addresses internationally. The maps onebox project intends to remedy the above situation by accomplishing the following goals: 1. Render a static map for the maps onebox (currently, only the local navigation onebox serves a map, but the map onebox does not) The ‘local navigation onebox’ was a OneBox which had been introduced in the US in July 2006. It displayed the location of a single business entity using a pin on a Google Map. . 2. Refine the heuristics currently used to trigger the maps onebox. 3. Be able to locate addresses on a map for international queries (e.g. 10 Downing Street, London)…. An improved maps onebox is expected to drive more traffic to the Google Maps property.”
“A user enters a query that will trigger the maps onebox. A static map will be rendered, along with a link to the query. Clicking on the link will take the user to the maps property showing the location on the full-blown maps interface.”
“Clicks ○ CTR better than the old onebox ○ Wholepage CTR flat or better” ○ CTR better than the old onebox ○ Wholepage CTR flat or better”
“… (i) the Click Through Rate (“CTR”) for the newstyle Maps OneBox itself should be higher than the oldstyle Maps OneBox; and (ii) the CTR of the whole results page (i.e., the sum of the clicks to both the blue links and the OneBox) should remain flat or increase. CTR was used as a measure for the utility of the result because user engagement with a result can mean that it is useful: like seeing whether a user is interested in a book in a library by checking whether the user actually picked up that book and looked at it.”
“The queries that trigger with the old map onebox but not the new one are invalid addresses.”
“Displaying a map on the SERP was a logical development for search engines, not only because it increased user convenience (one less option to select), but because: (i) search engines needed to take account of geospatial data in responding effectively to queries and in targeting ads anyway; and (ii) displaying a map provides the user with an instantly understandable result.”
“This was an expected consequence, not a goal of the project.”
“for the purposes of establishing an infringement of Article 82 EC, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the abuse in question had a concrete effect on the markets concerned. It is sufficient in that respect to demonstrate that the abusive conduct of the undertaking in a dominant position tends to restrict competition, or, in other words, that the conduct is capable of having, or likely to have, such an effect.”
“70. Significantly, BA itself states that it is not necessary in each case to establish actual anti-competitive effects of a rebate or bonus scheme on competitors. The burden on competition authorities, courts, and, in some cases, private complainants, in even attempting to establish it would in many cases be entirely disproportionate. 71. What is to be proved is, rather, the mere likelihood of the conduct in question hindering the maintenance or development of competition still existing in the market by means other than competition on the merits, thereby prejudicing the goal of effective and undistorted competition in the common market. With regard, therefore, to rebates and bonuses of a dominant undertaking, it has to be proved that they are capable of making it difficult or impossible for that undertaking’s competitors to have access to the market and its business partners to choose between various sources of supply.”
“…the Commission considered that in light of the specific circumstances of the present case, it could not merely assume, as it normally does in cases of abusive tying, that the tying of a specific product and a dominant product has by its nature a foreclosure effect. The Commission therefore examined more closely the actual effects which the bundling had already had on the streaming media player market and also the way in which that market was likely to evolve.”
“… where an undertaking in a dominant position actually puts into operation a practice generating the effect of ousting its competitors, the fact that the hoped-for result is not achieved is not sufficient to prevent a finding of abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 EC.”
“there is no need to show that the likely anti-competitive effect is of a serious or appreciable nature.”
“… since the course of conduct under consideration is that of an undertaking occupying a dominant position on a market where for this reason the structure of competition has already been weakened, within the field of application of Article [102] any further weakening of the structure of competition may constitute an abuse of a dominant position.”
“70 As regards … the serious or appreciable nature of an anti-competitive effect, although it is true that a finding that an undertaking has a dominant position is not in itself a ground of criticism of the undertaking concerned …, the conduct of such an undertaking may give rise to an abuse of its dominant position because the structure of competition on the market has already been weakened …. … 72 …, since the structure of competition on the market has already been weakened by the presence of the dominant undertaking, any further weakening of the structure of competition may constitute an abuse of a dominant position (judgment in Hoffmann-La Roche v Commission, 85/76, EU:C:1979:36, paragraph 123) 73 It follows that fixing an appreciability (de minimis) threshold for the purposes of determining whether there is an abuse of a dominant position is not justified. That anti-competitive practice is, by its very nature, liable to give rise to not insignificant restrictions of competition, or even of eliminating competition on the market on which the undertaking concerned operates. 74 It follows from the foregoing considerations that Article [102] must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to fall within the scope of that article, the anti-competitive effect of a rebate scheme operated by a dominant undertaking must be probable, there being no need to show that it is of a serious or appreciable nature.”
“A. there is – presentation bias, absolutely, like the higher you put something on the page. Q. And specifically what he [i.e. Professor Lewandowski] says, users tend to click on results at or near the top, and second statement, users tend to focus and click on results above the fold, you are agree with both of those? A. I agree with him. Q. You go on to explain why is that. Is that right? Is that correct? A. It is correct, that there is presentation bias and the higher you put something on the page there is an effect on that. Q. The specific statements, not just general presentation bias, the specific statements users tend to focus and click on results above the fold. A. That is correct.”
“2.9 Given that this is based on the size of the total market for Google Search, I do not consider that it is a perfect proxy for the size of the online maps market. However, I consider that it is the most appropriate proxy that I have available to me, and is based on a reliable, verifiable data source. 2.10 Also, while imperfect, I would expect that any abrupt changes to trends in this statistic would signal a likely underpinning event, or structural change, of some kind. 3.1 If searches for online maps remained a constant share of the total Google searches, and searches for Streetmap were to remain a constant share of searches for online maps, one would expect search interest to remain flat. Therefore, I consider that an appropriate counterfactual would be for search interest to remain relatively flat from June 2007 onwards. For there to be a decline in Streetmap’s search interest, there would have to be a reduction in: • searches for online maps as a proportion of total searches; • searches for Streetmap as a proportion of searches for online maps; • or a combination of these two effects.” • searches for online maps as a proportion of total searches; • searches for Streetmap as a proportion of searches for online maps; • or a combination of these two effects.”
“…this change in interest I think is profoundly significant. It picks up this lagged effect of brand awareness that I think is potentially evident in the market. It also leads direct URL or bookmark traffic, by which I mean, the fact that people are now searching less frequently for Streetmap, for whatever reason, gives rise to a potentially lower likelihood that in time these new searchers would bookmark Streetmap or choose to go directly to Streetmap in order to source their maps. So whilst it may not be a type of search that is specifically and directly affected by Google’s actions, the effect of Google’s actions could manifest itself very clearly in this space, and I think the evidence points again very clearly to the fact that it has done.”
“The graph you have included in Smith 4 is my graph shifted six months to the left. It is not a different graph. It is just the same data and values shifted to the left, crediting events that occurred in June 2007 to data that is recorded against January of 2007. I do not think, unless I have completely misunderstood what you have done, the graph is different. I do not think the smoothing of the line is different. I do not think the maximum is different in terms of anything. All you have done in effect is to shift the line back and paint a picture that suggests that effects that occurred in June should be viewed as having occurred in January.”
“… it is for the dominant undertaking to show that the efficiency gains likely to result from the conduct under consideration counteract any likely negative effects on competition and consumer welfare in the affected markets, that those gains have been, or are likely to be, brought about as a result of that conduct, that such conduct is necessary for the achievement of those gains in efficiency and that it does not eliminate effective competition, by removing all or most existing sources of actual or potential competition.”
“… the Court notes that, as the Commission observes both in the contested decision and in its pleadings, Microsoft does not show that the integration of Windows Media Player in Windows creates technical efficiencies or, in other words, that it “lead[s] to superior technical product performance” …”
“there must be no less anti-competitive alternatives to the conduct that are capable of producing the same efficiencies.”
“Was there a less distortive alternative that could have been adopted? That is really what this case is about at the end of the day.”
“The fact that a flat-rate royalty is charged can only be criticized by reference to the prohibition contained in Article [102] if other methods might be capable of attaining the same legitimate aim, namely the protection of the interests of authors, composers and publishers of music, without thereby increasing the costs of managing contracts and monitoring the use of protected musical works.”
“… it is not necessary for the Court to consider each of these options in detail; it is sufficient to determine whether one of these options would have been a less anti-competitive alternative capable of achieving Google’s objective.”
“(a) By inserting a clickable image of a map from Google Maps at or near the top of the first search engine results page of Google Search. Google treats its own online mapping service more favourably than equivalent competing services. (b) As a result of Google’s more favourable treatment of its own mapping service, Streetmap has suffered a competitive disadvantage in relation to Google Maps. Rival online mapping services (like Streetmap) that may be as relevant or more relevant to a search are more difficult for a user to find, because the user has to scroll down the screen to see them or has to go to a subsequent search results web page or because they do not see a map image.”
“On the basis of my own experience and knowledge, it is clear that presentation of a BMATP in SERPs is likely to attract users to click on the Google map image rather than to find location information via third party sites or via other online mapping services.”