Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![The Abuse of Dominant Position and IPRs in The EU]( "The Abuse of Dominant Position and IPRs in The EU")
The Abuse of Dominant Position and IPRs in The EU32,99 €![Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How]( "Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How")
Abuse of Dominant Position and Globalization & Protection and Disclosure of Trade Secrets and Know-How162,99 €![ABUS DE POSITION DOMINANTE]( "ABUS DE POSITION DOMINANTE")
ABUS DE POSITION DOMINANTE29,99 €![THE POSITION OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS CONCERNING DEFAMATION]( "THE POSITION OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS CONCERNING DEFAMATION")
THE POSITION OF INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS CONCERNING DEFAMATION36,99 €![La transmission conventionnelle de position contractuelle. Est-elle une notion pertinente ?]( "La transmission conventionnelle de position contractuelle. Est-elle une notion pertinente ?")
La transmission conventionnelle de position contractuelle. Est-elle une notion pertinente ?40,99 €![Position des droits d'Ulayat dans l'acquisition en Papouasie occidentale]( "Position des droits d'Ulayat dans l'acquisition en Papouasie occidentale")
Position des droits d'Ulayat dans l'acquisition en Papouasie occidentale29,99 €![THE POSITION OF DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUT]( "THE POSITION OF DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUT")
THE POSITION OF DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUT39,99 €
Economic agents that have a dominant position in the market or even a monopoly tend to abuse their dominant position. Thus, we will refer to the Android Case, committed by the technological giant of the 21st century, Google, which incurred in anti-competitive practices that were investigated from 2015 by the European Commission, which imposed in April 2018 a fine of 4.34 million euros for violating Competition Law.The Commission concluded that the Company from 2011, structured an anti-competitive strategy to expand and maintain its dominant position in the market; both for its search engine and browser, Google Search and Chrome respectively; by imposing restrictive clauses and unjustified conditions, in a general manner, to cell phone manufacturers that acquired through licensing contracts, the Android operating system, as well as to mobile network operators. The purpose of this study is to analyze the Android case and to determine, through each of its actions, how it managed to consolidate and extend its dominant position in the market, as well as to systematically abuse it.