Halting an injunction against Apple over the use of indispensable patents in smartphones and tablets, the European Commission made a preliminary antitrust finding against Google, which acquired Motorola Mobility. This move has been made by the Commission to control the companies that have been wielding their patents to stop rivals from using technologies necessary for the development of popular electronic devices. The Commission expects the companies to innovate and compete on the virtue of the products developed rather than trying to pull down competitors.
The European Commission regards some injunctions to impose patent claims as legitimate. But holders of standard and vital patents who have previously agreed to nondiscriminatory and reasonable licensing terms should conform to certain standards before opting for injunctions. Regulators in Europe are concerned about some national courts, like Germany, that make it easy for companies to win injunctions in similar cases and how, as a result, certain devices have been taken off the market. Michael A. Carrier, a professor in Rutgers Law School who specializes in antitrust law, stated that Europeans are probably worried about injunctions that may take phones out of their pockets, which luckily hasn’t happened yet.
Motorola Mobility had obtained the injunction against Apple from a German court, thereby preventing the latter from using certain necessary patents. Post the Commission’s decision, Motorola now has been given a time period of two months to respond to the charges. Motorola had filed these injunctions prior to Google’s purchase of its Mobility segment, but Google being the parent company will have to face the costs to cover the entire fine incurred by it. The tech giant had acquired Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion last year, thereby acquiring almost 17,000 patents owned by Motorola, predominantly related to wireless devices.
Mario Mariniello, a competition expert at Bruegel, Brussels said that the present case is difficult to decide and that the Commission is attempting to set an example by penalizing Motorola for making matters difficult for Apple. He added that an injunction can be considered abusive or not depending on the licensee, like Apple in this case, which was willing to pay a reasonable price for the technology. Not just Apple, Microsoft has also been concerned about access to certain wireless and video patents to be used in some of its products.
