Monday, July 06, 2015

Why Airbnb needs to be better at search than Google

Wired, here.

Google gets into the carpooling game with the launch of RideWith in Israel

VentureBeat, here. See also here

International cooperation in merger cases as a tool for effective enforcement of competition law

UNCTAD Secretariat, here

The role of competition in the pharmaceutical sector and its benefits for consumers

UNCTAD Secretariat, here.
See other contributions and presentations here

Writers Are Going Cuckoo For Kindle Unlimited

TechCrunch, here

The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value Beyond the Hype

McKinsey, here

Are National Courts the Addressees of the Infosoc Three-Step Test?

R. Arnold, E. Rosati, here

Après Uber, AirBnb dans le collimateur de Bercy ?

Deplacementspros.com, ici

Friday, July 03, 2015

The French, Italian and Swedish Competition Authorities Accept the Commitments Offered by Booking.com

ECN Brief 2/2015, here.
No direct link, hence:
In their investigations of so-called "price parity" clauses (also called "best price" clauses) contained in agreements between online travel agencies (OTAs) and hotels, the French Competition Authority (FCA), the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) and the Swedish Competition Authority (SCA) coordinated their investigations and, on 21 April 2015, adopted parallel decisions accepting identical commitments [1] from the market-leading OTA Booking.com and making them binding in their respective jurisdictions. The European Commission assisted the authorities in coordinating their work.
OTAs such as Booking.com operate internet platforms, on which consumers can search for, compare and book hotel rooms free of charge. Hotels only pay commission to the OTA for its services when a booking is made. The price parity clauses essentially require the hotels to offer the same or a better room price on Booking.com's platform as they offer on their other sales channels, including the hotel's own direct sales channels, be it online or offline. This means that Booking.com can raise its commission rate without the risk that hotels will translate this cost increase by offering higher room prices on Booking.com’s platform than on competing OTA platforms. The price parity clause, combined with the fact that hotels generally tend to sign up with several competing platforms, implies that Booking.com has less incentive to compete with other OTAs by charging lower commission rates to hotels than would otherwise be the case. As a result, the price parity clauses may restrict competition between existing OTAs and may lead to higher commission rates, which in turn may translate into higher consumer prices for hotel rooms. Furthermore, the price parity clause may constitute a barrier to entry on the market, by making it more difficult for an OTA to enter or expand on the market by competing with low commission rates in exchange for hotels offering lower room prices on that OTA’s platform. The three national competition authorities (NCAs) launched investigations to ascertain whether the price parity clauses in Booking.com’s agreements with hotels infringed the prohibition of restrictive agreements in Article 101 TFEU and, in the case of France and Sweden, the equivalent national legislation. The FCA’s investigation was also initiated on the basis of a possible infringement of the prohibition against abuse of dominance of Article 102 TFEU and its national equivalent.
In the course of the investigations, Booking.com conducted a customer survey of 14 000 consumers in 9 Member States and produced economic papers to argue, essentially, that parity between room prices in hotels’ own sales channels and prices offered on Booking.com’s platform is important in preventing free-riding on Booking.com’s investments and ensuring the continued supply of search and comparison services free of charge to consumers.
To solve the identified competition concerns, Booking.com offered a first version of commitments that were market tested and subsequently improved. In essence, the adopted commitments prevent Booking.com from requiring hotels to offer better or equal room prices via Booking.com than they do via competing OTAs. In addition, Booking.com cannot prevent hotels from offering discounted room prices provided that these are not marketed or made available to the general public online. The discounted prices can be offered online to members of a hotel’s loyalty scheme and/or via offline channels (e g direct emails, telephone and walk-in bookings).
The three NCAs performed economic analyses of the commitments and concluded that the will meet their competition concerns. The commitments will put pressure on OTAs' commission rates and the quality of service, which will ultimately lead to lower room prices and better services for consumers. The commitments will also make it easier for new OTAs to enter the market and for innovative OTAs to expand.
Following the commitment decision, the Booking.com cases were closed in France, Italy and Sweden. However, the respective competition authorities continue their investigations concerning Expedia’s price parity clauses and in France also concerning HRS's parity clauses.
See further:

[1] The French version of the commitments provides for a mid-term review.

OTA lobby report preceded US airline antitrust inquiry, House of Cards-style

Tnooz.com, here

Uber annonce la suspension d’UberPop en France

Le Monde, ici

OTAs see chaos when rate parity ends

HotelMarketing.com, here

Challenging assumptions about behavioral policy

Behavioral Science & Policy Association, here

Ubérisation : une course au moins disant social ?

Mechanical Turk
F. Marty, ici

Dutch universities start their Elsevier boycott plan

Vermeer, Brieflezende vrouw in het blauw

Universonline.nl, here

Wednesday, July 01, 2015

Expedia Amends Rate, Conditions and Availability Parity Clauses

Expediainc.com, here

"Predatory Privacy": The Limits of Economic Analysis

O. Lynskey, Presentation here

PCWs & other matching platforms - The frenemies of competition

T. Curzon Price, Presentation here

Best Price Clauses Set by Intermediation Platforms: Disentangling the Effects

K.-U. Kühn, Presentation here

Data Privacy, Data Sharing and the Internet of Things

J. Porter, Presentation here

Schleppende Zulassung von UberX-Fahrern

wiwo.de, hier.

Apple Music Is For People With No Clue What To Stream


TechCrunch, here.

(the first cats on @Wavesblog ever - début in 2007)

Uber Stages Protest At NYC City Hall Against Bill Throttling New Driver Signups

Techcrunch.com. here

Canada : des bibliothécaires dénoncent le racket des exemplaires numériques

Actualitte.com, here.

104-page Disconnect's Complaint against Google (Android)

Non-confidential copy, here.

(Plenty of fascinating tech details)

Appeals court says Apple is liable for e-book price fixing

ArsTechnica, here.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Supreme Court won’t weigh in on Oracle-Google API copyright battle

ArsTechnica, here

Tim Wu: "The main surprising and shocking realization is that Google is not presenting its best product"

Recode.net, here. Study here

Uber: more like eBay than like McDonald’s?

NewYorker.com, here

Deux dirigeants d'Uber en garde à vue

Numerama.com, ici.

L’innovation de rupture: de nouveaux défis pour le droit de la concurrence

T. Schrepel, ici

Oracle v. Google Android-Java copyright case goes back to San Fran: Supreme Court denies Google petition

Fosspatents.com, here

The German Pillow Fight Drags On: "Caution with new terms of Booking.com!"

German Hotel Association, here

Apparently, "everyone" knew of a leaked (online) copy of Google (Search) Statement of Objections - I didn't

With a little help from @wavesblog readers, perhaps?

ProSiebenSat.1 acquires German online price comparison business Verivox for up to €210 million

Tech.eu, here

Warning: You are about to be nudged

G. Loewenstein, C. Bryce, D. Hagmann, & S. Rajpal, here.

Uber’s Biggest Rival In China Claims It Handles 3 Million Rides Per Day

Techcrunch.com, here

Booking.com alarmed by France’s new hotel rate parity plans

Hotelmarketing, here.
The original LesEchos article here

Uber, sharing and the compensation mechanism

J. Gans, here

Is Google Degrading Search? Consumer Harm from Universal Search

M. Luca, T. Wu and the Yelp Data Science Team, here

Two-Sided Platforms: Discussion

Here
S. Vezzoso (this blog's author), Presentation here

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Domaine Public, abus et Amazon

Framablog, ici.

Uber driver case poses questions for ‘sharing economy’

FT, here.

"The case highlighted a fundamental dilemma for internet companies built on the booming freelance sector. Establishing some level of control over the workers who use their platforms is often essential to ensuring a consistent level of service.
But the further they go — for instance, by laying down standards of training or conduct — the more they lay themselves open to one day being forced to accept the full responsibilities of employers. For the California labour commissioner, Uber’s control of pricing, tipping, driver ratings and the type of car made it look like an employer."

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Ambition Numérique

Rapport, CNNum, ici.

Dealing with Losers: The Political Economy of Policy Transitions

M. Trebilcock, here

Google Is Its Own Secret Weapon in the Cloud

NYT, here

Google’s War Against Apps

Theinformation.com, here (paywall).
See also herehere and here.

CCP Annual Conference 2015 Live Blogging

Here.
Conference Programme here

Core data protection topics in the perspective of the trilogue between European institutions.

WP29, here

Vertikale Preisbindung im Lebensmitteleinzelhandel - Großteil der Bußgeldverfahren abgeschlossen

Bundeskartellamt.de, hier.
Fallberichte hier (Röstkaffee), hier (Haribo-Produkte) und hier (Ritter-Produkte).

Should Uber be Allowed to Compete in Europe? And if so How?

D. Geradin, here

«L'Internet est sorti du temps de l'innocence»

Libération, ici

US Supreme Court Leaves Standing Decisions on Foreign Antitrust Conduct

Online Copyright Enforcement, Consumer Behavior, and Market Structure

L. Aguiar, J. Claussen, C. Peukert, here

First new private bank opens in UK for 30 years

FT, here

Five for Five – Amazon Inks Deal With Random Penguin

The-digital-reader, here

Independence is non-negotiable

M. Vestager, here

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Game of Thrones breaks piracy records once again

Futureofcopyright, here

Court of Human Rights holds news portal liable for user comments

@Technollama, here

Brief Amici Curiae on Behalf of 70 Law, Economics, and Business Professors and the American Antitrust Institute - Loestrin pay-for-delay case

Here

Ten years of commitment decisions under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003: Too much of a good thing?

W. Wils, here

UK Record labels attack Apple deals that would leave them 'deeply unsatified'

Telegraph.co.uk, here

The Commercial Use of Consumer Data

DotEcon with Analysys Mason for the CMA, here.
See also the Report on the CMA’s call for information, here

Internet-Plattformen: Innovation siegt stets über Gerechtigkeit

E. Morozov, hier

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Amazon Is Building An App To Let Normal People Deliver Packages For Pay

TechCrunch, here.

How big is the self-publishing market? Only Amazon knows

TheBookseller.com, here

Time to stick a fork in these Android competition complaints

Computer & Communications Industry Association, here

European Commission approves joint venture for cross-border licensing of online music between PRSfM, STIM and GEMA, subject to commitments

Press Release, here

Open Letter on the Digital Economy

 1995

Here

Julia Reda's Press Conference

Video here (from 0:30)

U.S. Court Upholds Antitrust Action Against Patent Troll

Dilbert.com
M. Carrier, here

Apple News: I Do Not Agree To Your Terms

MikeAsh.com, here