What matter? Someone put a wet finger in the air and the regulator decided to complain. Or some EU competitor didn’t get a contract with apple because of “business as usual” in the US and they are complaining. What matter exactly is this?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone Glass Supplier Corning Faces EU Antitrust Probe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, the regulator did not decide to complain: the regulator decided to investigate and made perfectly clear in their announcement that they have not reached any conclusions yet. You are confusing the start of an investigation with a notice of regulatory violation.
If your neighbor goes to the police and claims that your assaulted him, the police is going to start an investigation. It doesn't mean they established already that you are guilty or even that a crime has actually been committed: they are simply acting upon whatever information they have been provided and try to establish whether the information is credible, what happened, whether what happened is illegal and if it seems illegal who is likely to be the culprit.
This is likely exactly the same situation: some company likely filed a complaint to the regulator and the regulator started an investigation to figure out the merits of the complaint and potential violations.
What would you have them do exactly? Ignore a complaint without investigating its merits?
I don‘t know about the U.S. - but I hope that illegal business conduct is not „usual“.
And I asked you, based on what exactly? Do you know whether one or more complaints were filed to the regulator and if any which information said complaints contained? Do you have any evidence that indicates that in this particular case the regulator is "overreaching"?
Neither is it what's being investigated in this case:
"The EU's investigation will focus on exclusive sourcing obligations, exclusivity rebates and clauses requiring phone makers to inform Corning about competitive offers and accepting these offers only if Corning fails to match the price"
You're still in denial about that matter at hand (that's being alleged and investigated) here.
In spite of @bsolar having just explained it to you.
Last edited:
You’re in denial that in most of the business world that is standard operating procedure. Good luck in any legal action if these transactions occurred outside of the EU.
It seems like government overreach, especially if none of these transactions occurred within the bounds of the EU. Transactions which seem to be normal business practices across the globe.
Where did you get any information about the specific transactions that are being investigated? Do you have any information that suggests that there are transactions being investigated that are outside of the EU?
So far from what I have read there is zero information about the specific contracts being investigated, so if you have a source that provides those details please link it. Otherwise, you don't have any concrete information you are using to form your impression of "overreach".
Furthermore, even establishing where the transactions took place or whether the EU regulators have jurisdiction might require an investigation. The investigation might very well conclude that the complaints have no merit, but the investigation need to happen first to reach a conclusion.
From the link in the article. iPhones are mostly assembled in china and Corning and apple are US companies.
See above.
Based on past history, eg the DMA id say the odds are pretty good about overreach.
Especially if no transactions occurred within the eu. Good luck.
It is not.
„exclusive sourcing obligations … and clauses requiring (buying customers) to inform (dupplier) about competitive offers and accepting these offers only if (supplier) fails to match the price“
are not „standard operating procedure“ or „business as usual“. A company that‘s buying parts or components does not usually obligate itself to disclose their supplier of competing offerings in „most of the business world“.
It 100% is standard business practice for a company to ask a supplier to build an exclusive item and the supply said item exclusively.
And if none of these transactions occurred in the eu it’s clearly government overreach.
You are (again) diverting to something else.
Yes, a company may ask a supplier to exclusively produce an items/components for them.
But no, a supplier does not usually contractually require their customer to buy all of their supply for (a catgory) similar products from them - nor oblige them to disclose competing offers for supply of said items. Let alone prohibit their customer from buying from a competing supplier.
Last edited:
That’s been my point all along. You diverted to using google as an example.
But yes, a supplier can enter into an exclusive arrangement with a customer.
No - that was an example from U.S. case law of a dominant company whose exclusivity agreements were found anticompetitively violating antitrust law. Similar in concept to what Corning is investigated for - and demonstrating that this is not happening „only in the EU“.
Again: that’s not what the case is about. It’s about a supplier demanding exclusive sourcing from the buyer.
„You make and sell XY exclusively to me“ is usual business.
„You agree to buy all of your supply for certain products from us and agree to disclose competing offers by other suppliers to us“ is not.
And if that supplier has a dominant market position and use such arrangements to shut out competition from the market, they are violating antitrust law.
Just like in the U.S. The FTC forewarn them.
Last edited:
What are you talking about? The only meaningful link in the article is the press release announcing the investigation. There is no mention of "Apple" or "iPhones" in said article, nor there is any mention of specific companies or products except for Corning.
Only if you believe the DMA is overreaching. Said that, even if you believe so, you are not evaluating this particular situation on its merits or lack thereof: you are expressing a prejudice.
What luck? The goal of an investigation is to determine whether there are violations and proceed with a case, or determine that there is no violation and archive the investigation. Finding no violation as outcome would not be some sort of "defeat" as you seem to paint it.
The regulators themselves made very clear that they have not made any definitive finding yet and that there is no prejudice for the investigation's outcome.
Who is a major consumer of Corning Gorilla Glass?
The EU did it to itself.
What are the suspicions of the investigations, for the 1000th time?
Why are they even doing this investigation for the 1000th time?
There is no similar in concept here.
Which buyer?
Corning does not produce Gorilla glass in the EU and I don't feel like looking up their revenue from EU operations, but yeah as I said, good luck with this.
Exclusivity contracts to shut out competition.
Been linked explained to you multiple times.
You‘re in denial.
You're in denial about how business is conducted; even if you don't like lock-in. There is no point in beating a dead-horse to death. We'll see how this unfolds as other discussions before this.
No, I've said clearly stated how I know and believe it is.
Strawmen such as "paying a supplier", "building an exclusive item" and supplying it exclusively, or a generic "exclusive arrangement" are "business as usual". But the alleged misconduct is not. Despite it having clearly been pointed out to you, you have reeatedly to refused to engage with or acknowledge it:
- Do suppliers contractually prohibit their paying customers to buy from competitors?
- Do suppliers oblige their customers to disclose offers from competing suppliers to them?
Especially not when you're a dominant undertaking in a market, and intended to shut out the competition. Which it is illegal per US and European competition law.
Last edited:
How do you even know which consumer is relevant to the investigation? Do you have information on which consumer has an exclusivity sourcing deal with Corning where they accept to source from Corning exclusively?
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
Employment of exclusivity deals to limit competition. And again:
- We don't know which specific deals with which specific companies are being taken into account.
- We don't know whether the investigation will find any wrongdoing.
- If the investigation finds wrongdoing, we don't know the evidence that supports such conclusion.
Last edited:
The US have basically the same concept (emphasis mine):
Further in the article:
That's basically the same rationale found in the EU article I provided before.
…as was already been linked and told to I7Guy - but met with refusal to engage and dismissed with a one-liner.
Just as your earlier explanation how Corning may have violated EU antitrust law was coldly stonewalled by him.