iPhone Glass Supplier Corning Faces EU Antitrust Probe

[bsolar]

According to ChatGPT the US is the biggest producer in the world. If you are going to compare the EU to the US, it should be the EU to North America.

It should be EU to US or Europe to North America. Said that, if you want to compare with Europe, you will also have to include Switzerland which is not in the EU but is in Europe. Switzerland alone exports more pharmaceuticals than the whole US.

The US is a huge pharmaceutical consumer so they have huge internal production too, but if you look at their exports they are very small compared to the EU. The US exports ~$90B per year in pharmaceuticals, the EU ~$280B. Germany alone exports ~$120B and if you want to include European countries not in the EU, Switzerland alone exports ~$100B.

One small anecdotal example of this reliance on European exports is US states with the death penalty finding out they became unable to reliably source the required pharmaceuticals for lethal injections when the export from Europe was banned for use in executions. Some states had to postpone executions, discuss whether bring back execution by firing squad to the table, try with different pharmaceuticals, or even try different execution methods altogether like nitrogen asphyxiation.

The Disney case is sad, it shouldn’t fly here either. But some of the other stuff is standard business practices which mostly are acceptable worldwide. Not taking distinct anticompetitive behavior.

Sad or not, it's a consequence of the anti-regulation and anti-consumer-protection mentality.

 

[I7guy]

It should be EU to US or Europe to North America. Said that, if you want to compare with Europe, you will also have to include Switzerland which is not in the EU but is in Europe. Switzerland alone exports more pharmaceuticals than the whole US.

I wasn’t referring to exports only production.

The US is a huge pharmaceutical consumer so they have huge internal production too, but if you look at their exports they are very small compared to the EU. The US exports ~$90B per year in pharmaceuticals, the EU ~$280B. Germany alone exports ~$120B and if you want to include European countries not in the EU, Switzerland alone exports ~$100B.

One small anecdotal example of this reliance on European exports is US states with the death penalty finding out they became unable to reliably source the required pharmaceuticals for lethal injections when the export from Europe was banned for use in executions. Some states had to postpone executions, discuss whether bring back execution by firing squad to the table, try with different pharmaceuticals, or even try different execution methods altogether like nitrogen asphyxiation.

Niche case does not make the general argument.

Sad or not, it's a consequence of the anti-regulation and anti-consumer-protection mentality.

 

[I7guy]

Why would they be compensated for removing barriers that shouldn't be there?

Those barriers are theirs. And no one is forced to live with them if they don’t like the business model.

The police aren't paying me to fix my illegal window tint.

You knew the risks when you enabled to promote an illegal activity.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

You knew the risks when you enabled to promote an illegal activity.

So did Corning when they wrote up these anticompetitive deals. One doesn't accidentally stifle competition.

 

[bsolar]

I wasn’t referring to exports only production.

Which is only part of the equation, as I explained.

Niche case does not make the general argument.

Never claimed it did, I claimed it was a mere example. Examples are not meant to be exhaustive. I still stand by my argument in general.

I don't think it makes sense to keep discussing this particular topic which is probably even off topic: I presented my arguments and you presented yours and for me that's more than enough.

 

[I7guy]

So did Corning when they wrote up these anticompetitive deals. One doesn't accidentally stifle competition.

Can you explain how they were anticompetitive and not business as usual? Does Samsung give apple their best displays? And which part of this process is within the EU?

Illegal activities from the get go are not business as usual.

 

[bsolar]

Can you explain how they were anticompetitive and not business as usual? Does Samsung give apple their best displays? And which part of this process is within the EU?

Illegal activities from the get go are not business as usual.

Helpful to understand the legal framework in the EU is this guidance article. From the introduction:

1. Article 82 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (‘Article 82’) prohibits abuses of a dominant position. In accordance with the case-law, it is not in itself illegal for an undertaking to be in a dominant position and such a dominant undertaking is entitled to compete on the merits. However, the undertaking concerned has a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair genuine undistorted competition on the common market.

This means some practices employed by a company in a dominant market position can be illegal, whereas the same practices by a company not in a dominant position might be not.

The reason is that the practice itself might not be illegal per se, but the practice causing a distortion of the free market is. The practice employed by the dominant company might have the power to distort the market, but the practice employed by a weaker company might not.

Very relevant for this case is IV. A. Exclusive dealing:

32. A dominant undertaking may try to foreclose its competitors by hindering them from selling to customers through use of exclusive purchasing obligations or rebates, together referred to as exclusive dealing (23). This section sets out the circumstances which are most likely to prompt an intervention by the Commission in respect of exclusive dealing arrangements entered into by dominant undertakings.

Further: IV. A. (a) Exclusive purchasing:

33. An exclusive purchasing obligation requires a customer on a particular market to purchase exclusively or to a large extent only from the dominant undertaking. Certain other obligations, such as stocking requirements, which appear to fall short of requiring exclusive purchasing, may in practice lead to the same effect (24).

And IV. A. (b) Conditional rebates:

37. Conditional rebates are rebates granted to customers to reward them for a particular form of purchasing behaviour. The usual nature of a conditional rebate is that the customer is given a rebate if its purchases over a defined reference period exceed a certain threshold, the rebate being granted either on all purchases (retroactive rebates) or only on those made in excess of those required to achieve the threshold (incremental rebates). Conditional rebates are not an uncommon practice. Undertakings may offer such rebates in order to attract more demand, and as such they may stimulate demand and benefit consumers. However, such rebates — when granted by a dominant undertaking — can also have actual or potential foreclosure effects similar to exclusive purchasing obligations. Conditional rebates can have such effects without necessarily entailing a sacrifice for the dominant undertaking (26).

Especially those 2 points seem to apply pretty well to what Corning allegedly did.

Basically not every exclusive dealing is an automatic violation of anti-trust regulation, but it might be depending on the status of dominant position, the barriers of entry to the market etc...

I suggest to read the whole document and in particular the whole IV. A. Exclusive dealing section: it provides a description of the various practices and the elements the regulator takes into account to determine whether they are a violation or not.

 

[I7guy]

Helpful to understand the legal framework in the EU is this guidance article. From the introduction:



This means some practices employed by a company in a dominant market position can be illegal, whereas the same practices by a company not in a dominant position might be not.

The reason is that the practice itself might not be illegal per se, but the practice causing a distortion of the free market is. The practice employed by the dominant company might have the power to distort the market, but the practice employed by a weaker company might not.

Very relevant for this case is IV. A. Exclusive dealing:



Further: IV. A. (a) Exclusive purchasing:



And IV. A. (b) Conditional rebates:



Especially those 2 points seem to apply pretty well to what Corning allegedly did.

Basically not every exclusive dealing is an automatic violation of anti-trust regulation, but it might be depending on the status of dominant position, the barriers of entry to the market etc...

I suggest to read the whole document and in particular the whole IV. A. Exclusive dealing section: it provides a description of the various practices and the elements the regulator takes into account to determine whether they are a violation or not.

Got it. You cannot.

 

[bsolar]

Got it. You cannot.

I'm not sure I understand you, but I think the reason is that you have in mind a false dilemma.

You seem to think that a business practice is either "business as usual" or "anti-competitive". This is a false dilemma: in reality a business practice can be "business as usual" if employed by a company and at the same time anti-competitive if employed by another depending on the situation.

There is nothing special in that: anti-trust regulation in general places a greater burden on companies that have the strength to distort the market and special attention to markets with higher barriers to entry. This is not even something special for the EU: the US anti-trust regulations work on the same principle.

Specifically, from the document I provided, V. A. (b) Conditional rebates:

Conditional rebates are not an uncommon practice. Undertakings may offer such rebates in order to attract more demand, and as such they may stimulate demand and benefit consumers. However, such rebates — when granted by a dominant undertaking — can also have actual or potential foreclosure effects similar to exclusive purchasing obligations.

Ultimately Corning is alleged to be a dominant undertaking and alleged to have engaged in exclusive dealing with the effect of distorting competition. If proven, that's a pretty straightforward violation of anti-trust regulation as explained in the document provided.

Of course the allegations need to be proven first: for now there is only an investigation underway.

 

[I7guy]

I'm not sure I understand you, but I think the reason is that you have in mind a false dilemma.

You seem to think that a business practice is either "business as usual" or "anti-competitive". This is a false dilemma: in reality a business practice can be "business as usual" if employed by a company and at the same time anti-competitive if employed by another depending on the situation.

There is nothing special in that: anti-trust regulation in general places a greater burden on companies that have the strength to distort the market and special attention to markets with higher barriers to entry. This is not even something special for the EU: the US anti-trust regulations work on the same principle.

Specifically, from the document I provided, V. A. (b) Conditional rebates:



Ultimately Corning is alleged to be a dominant undertaking and alleged to have engaged in exclusive dealing with the effect of distorting competition. If proven, that's a pretty straightforward violation of anti-trust regulation as explained in the document provided.

Of course the allegations need to be proven first: for now there is only an investigation underway.

Good luck to the EU in getting Corning fined, especially if business deals happened outside of the EU.

 

[bsolar]

Good luck to the EU in getting Corning fined, especially if business deals happened outside of the EU.

We don't know the details of the case yet, again it's only at the investigation phase. Arguing whether the case has merit or not is pure speculation at this point as there are no actual charges being brought against corning yet, nor arguments presented supporting those charges.

It's not even a given that the EU is going to bring an actual case against Corning at all: it is entirely possible they had to start an investigation after a competitor filed a complaint but after investigating the matter find that Corning's conduct does not violate anti-trust regulation and the complaint had no merit.

If they do bring a case, they would have to argue why they have jurisdiction, which regulation was violated etc... at that point it will be possible to discuss based on something more substantial. Until then it's entirely speculation.

 

[AppliedMicro]

standard business practice in the US is viewed as anti-competitive in the EU

Having a dominant market position and stifling/deterring competition through exclusionary practices is illegal not only under EU competition laws. It’s also illegal under United States of America antitrust law:

“Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.

Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements”

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

That’s in fact what Google has just been found “guilty” of.


👉 There is evidence that Corning may have engaged in similar practices - which is why they’re being investigated by the EU.

 

[I7guy]

We don't know the details of the case yet, again it's only at the investigation phase. Arguing whether the case has merit or not is pure speculation at this point as there are no actual charges being brought against corning yet, nor arguments presented supporting those charges.

It's not even a given that the EU is going to bring an actual case against Corning at all: it is entirely possible they had to start an investigation after a competitor filed a complaint but after investigating the matter find that Corning's conduct does not violate anti-trust regulation and the complaint had no merit.

If they do bring a case, they would have to argue why they have jurisdiction, which regulation was violated etc... at that point it will be possible to discuss based on something more substantial. Until then it's entirely speculation.

So, this at face value appears to be an additional example of overreach. (Which it probably is)

 

[I7guy]

Having a dominant market position and stifling/deterring competition through exclusionary practices is illegal not only under EU competition laws. It’s also illegal under United States of America antitrust law:

“Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.

Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements”

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance...ws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

That’s in fact what Google has just been found “guilty” of.

Nice off topic deflection. We are discussing Corning in this thread.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Nice off topic deflection.

You’re in denial.

It is related to the topic, because…

We are discussing Corning in this thread.

The legal principle and argument is the same:

A dominant company is legally allowed to compete with their products on their own merits.

But certain exclusionary practices employed by them may be illegal under antitrust laws - thus (hopefully) not “standard business practice”. In the EU just as in the US.

Note that that doesn’t mean that exclusivity agreements are always illegal per se. But they may be prohibited when they’re being used by dominant firms to eliminate and deter competition.

Again: same or similar conduct employed by (“smaller”) companies in competitive markets is judged differently than for companies having a dominant market position, from a perspective of antitrust law.

 

[I7guy]

You’re in denial.

Another off-topic response this time in the form of an insult?

The principle and argument is the same: a dominant company is legally allowed to compete with their products on their own merits.

But certain exclusionary practices employed by them may be illegal under antitrust laws - thus (hopefully) not “standard business practice”. In the EU just as in the US.

Note that that doesn’t mean that exclusivity agreements are always illegal per se. But they may be prohibited when they’re being used by dominant firms to eliminate and deter competition.

Again, this seems like more government overreach.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Another off-topic response this time in the form of an insult?

An insult?
If you believe it‘s an insult, report it to moderators.
I find it no less insulting than your “Nice off topic deflection” one-liner above.

Again, this seems like more government overreach.

That’s your opinion.
And we’re not surprised about that.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Nice off topic deflection. We are discussing Corning in this thread.

Feel free to explain how the (arguments and findings in the) Google judgement is fundamentally different from a legal perspective.

 

[I7guy]

An insult?
If you believe it‘s an insult, report it to moderators.
I find it no less insulting than your “Nice off topic deflection” one-liner above.

Deflection refers to the post, denial refers to the person. Hence the difference.

That’s your opinion.
And we’re not surprised about that.

As we are not surprised about your “opinion” either. I’ll say again, this feels like government overreach.

 

[AppliedMicro]

(Double-post)

 

[I7guy]

Feel free to explain how the (arguments and findings in the) Google judgement is fundamentally different from a legal perspective.

Feel free to explain exactly how the business dealings of Corning were fundamentally the same as google. What benefits Corning reaped at the expense of which competitors. Be specific.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Google was found to have a dominant position in certain markets.
And their exclusivity agreements exclusionary practices that restrict competition, violating antitrust law.

In a case of law in the U.S.

Corning is alleged to have a dominant position in certain markets.
And they‘re being investigated for using exclusivity agreements as exclusionary practices by the European Commission.

👉 Shows that the EU and the U.S. have similar concepts of what is legal as „standard business practice“ and what’s not, when employed by a dominant firm.

The actual finding in individual cases and across different industries may of course slightly differ between those two jurisdictions.

Feel free to explain exactly how the business dealings of Corning were fundamentally the same as google. What benefits Corning reaped at the expense of which competitors

See above: stifling and deterring competition through exclusionary exclusivity agreements.

The exact details in individual cases have been - or will be - worked out by legal professionals, antitrust regulators and courts of law.

 

[I7guy]

Which EU companies were disenfranchised by Corning’s dominant position?

 

[AppliedMicro]

As already mentioned over the last two pages of this thread, possibly Schott glass, possibly Fairphone.
Wouldn‘t be surprised about Saint-Gobain either.
I’m certainly no expert in high-performance glass technology or markets.

And the EU are arguing that it‘s to the detriment of consumers.

 

[bsolar]

So, this at face value appears to be an additional example of overreach. (Which it probably is)

Based on what exactly? There is exactly zero information to speculate whether it's "overreach" or not. For all we know the investigation might be the result of a complaint filed by one or more companies.

We don't know yet the position of the regulator on the matter, so there is basically no "reaching" yet, let alone "overreaching".