Massive EU Antitrust Fine Levied Against Intel

The European Commission has fined Intel 1.06 billion Euros—about $1.45 billion—for alleged anticompetitive actions against longtime rival AMD and enjoined any future such actions, report Reuters and the NY Times. The fine, a record, is more than double the one imposed on Microsoft in 2004, and 25% larger than a 2008 penalty against a glass maker for price fixing. Intel had no immediate comment, but is expected to appeal. Other tech companies facing EU antitrust scrutiny include Google, Cisco, Microsoft and IBM, with the latter two having actually been charged.

The size of the fine underscores the dominant role European regulators have adopted in antitrust, an area of law that somewhat faded from the U.S. radar screen over the last 30 years, especially during the mostly Republican administrations in that period. That quiescence will change under Obama, according to commentators and the new head of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. In any case, antitrust enforcement is an increasingly global affair and, with antitrust laws in over 100 countries, one wonders whether an international treaty might one day emerge. The political obstacles, however, are probably formidable.

Viacom Can't Get Punitive Damages in YouTube/Google Suit

Viacom's suit against YouTube and Google slowly works its way through the legal system. In a decision rendered last week, but only generally reported yesterday, the Federal District Court in New York hearing the case denied Viacom's motion to amend its complaint to seek punitive damages against the defendants.

The Court's reasoning: the Copyright law doesn't provide for punitive damages. Thus, the decision says nothing about the strength of Viacom's case, or the thorny issue of whether the DMCA safe harbor - the notice and takedown procedures that govern one-off infringements on websites - applies in the case of the massive infringement alleged in this suit.

Punitive damages are damages intended to punish particularly conduct by defendants that's particularly egregious, as Viacom alleges is the case here. If available, they would come in addition to actual damages (the plaintiff's actual losses) or statutory damages, which are an alternative to actual damages where it's difficult to show actual damages (or where none have occurred).

"Don't Touch My Body (of Work)!" Vivid Tells PornoTube

Vivid Video, a major adult video producer, is suing PornoTube, a YouTube knockoff, reports the LA Times. The suit alleges that Vivid's copyrighted content is available on PornoTube. Suit is conceptually similar to the Viacom suit against YouTube and Google.

The LA Times story also notes in passing that the widespread availability of free short clips on the Web hurts porn producers (whose content is often long-form) because "consumers of adult fare often get what they are looking for in clips of five minutes or less." Indeed.

Expensive Book?

Facebook may be in play, reports Variety, and at a $10 billion valuation. (School yearbooks always cost too much.) Microsoft is dropping hints about spending $500 million for 5% of the company, and Google may try to outbid them. No other potential bidders are mentioned as likely. Over at News Corp, Rupert Murdoch must be happy that MySpace only cost him $580 million.

Anerican Airlines AdWords Lawsuit

Litigation continues over Google AdWords (see previous post). The latest development: Google is seeking to dismiss a suit by American Airlines, reports the Dallas Business Journal.

American's miffed that AdWords can display a competitor's ads next to search results for a company's trademarks (search for "American Airlines" and you might get United ads next to the American results).

Google says this is no different than a drugstore displaying generic drugs next to brand name drugs, or printing a coupon for Minutemaid on the back of a grocery receipt of a customer who bought Tropicana. Good analogies.

What Google's fighting is a line of cases regarding "initial interest confusion," which prohibit using a competitor's trademark in meta tags in order to attract search engines. But Google's an information provider, not a competitor of American. It's a close case - for instance, if Google displayed the ads in a popup that hides the actual search results, that would seem wrong. But where the ads are merely adjacent to the search results, or at the head of the list, I think Google's right.

Google Phone Payment Patent

Looks like Google's been working overtime on phone technology: they've filed for a patent on making payments to vending machines and retailers via text msg or SMS, reports PC World. Sounds like part of an interesting business model.

Closing the Blinds on AdWords Suit

Google's AdWords system allows companies to have their ads run adjacent to search results that relate to keywords, including keywords that are their competitor's trademarks. For instance, if Pepsi wanted to, it could have ads for its soft drinks appear every time a user searched for "Coke". (Just a hypothetical example.)

Is this trademark infringement? A company called American Blind thought so, and sued Google. That suit ended in a settlement yesterday, however, reports Law.com, with no admission of liability. The issue will no doubt be litigated again, perhaps to conclusion.