Corning's Gorilla Glass Under EU Antitrust Investigation (theverge.com) 28
The European Commission has opened a formal investigation into Corning to determine whether it has broken antitrust rules with its dominant Gorilla Glass product. From a report: Corning's Alkali-aluminosilicate glass is used to protect most of the top phones and tablets, with both Samsung and Apple using it extensively across their range of devices. The EU is concerned that Corning has used a variety of exclusivity contracts to exclude rival glass makers from the phone market. "It is very frustrating and costly experience to break a mobile phone screen. Therefore, strong competition in the production of the cover glass used to protect such devices is crucial to ensure low prices and high-quality glass," says outgoing EU competition chief Margrethe Vestager.
"We are investigating if Corning, a major producer of this special glass, may have tried to exclude rival glass producers, thereby depriving consumers from cheaper and more break-resistant glass." The Commission's concerns are centered on the agreements with mobile device makers and companies that produce raw glass. The EU is looking into exclusive sourcing obligations that have required device makers to source "all of nearly all" of their glass from Corning, enabled rebates for exclusivity deals, and forced device makers to report on competitive offers and only accept them if Corning failed to price match.
"We are investigating if Corning, a major producer of this special glass, may have tried to exclude rival glass producers, thereby depriving consumers from cheaper and more break-resistant glass." The Commission's concerns are centered on the agreements with mobile device makers and companies that produce raw glass. The EU is looking into exclusive sourcing obligations that have required device makers to source "all of nearly all" of their glass from Corning, enabled rebates for exclusivity deals, and forced device makers to report on competitive offers and only accept them if Corning failed to price match.
I think ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, but Corning is the tip of the iceberg here. Thinking back to Microsoft and its compulsory Windows deals back in the day. Or maybe some of the crap John Deere has been pulling.
Re: (Score:2)
In spite of a need for governments to stand aside and stay out of private contracts
Sorry but can you point to where this need is defined? In both legal and economic terms the opposite is true. The government is required for regulation both in legal terms (contracts exist by will of a government enforcement system) and in economic terms (unregulated capitalism is fucking terrifying if you actually read an economics textbook).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but can you point to where this need is defined?
US Constitution. The right to review or grant prior permission for individuals to enter into agreements (of which a contract is a type) has not been granted to States or Congress. So it is a right belonging to the people.
Considering (Score:2)
My company provided iPhone has a hairline, crescent-shaped crack in its screen, and I have never dropped the phone, the glass can't be that good.
Fine for going after anticompetitive agreements. (Score:2, Insightful)
Though, was there a reason to think Corning was doing this? Are there other glass manufacturers who asked regulators to look into it?
"We are investigating if Corning, a major producer of this special glass, may have tried to exclude rival glass producers, thereby depriving consumers from cheaper and more break-resistant glass."
I mean, great, if they were doing anticompetitive business deals, then regulate that and open up the market. But who's waiting in the wings with cheaper, more break-resistant glass?
Re: (Score:1)
welcome to the EU - make up problems and then go looking for the victims.
Re: (Score:2)
Commission usually acts on tips and requests from competitors, yes.
Re:Fine for going after anticompetitive agreements (Score:4, Informative)
So anyone trying to sell strong glass to a cell phone manufacturer would find a lack of interest in their product even if it was cheaper if they could not instantly replace Corning. Resulting in no one competing with Corning to produce strong glass using a 60+ year old process.
Patents (Score:2)
"We're going to give a monopoly on the production of this glass and then complain about the lack of competition."
These end-product patents are such trash. Process patents would be sufficient if we need them at all.
A little competition would do wonders.
Re: (Score:3)
Investigating what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Investigating what exactly? (Score:4, Insightful)
The EU is looking into exclusive sourcing obligations that have required device makers to source "all of nearly all" of their glass from Corning, enabled rebates for exclusivity deals, and forced device makers to report on competitive offers and only accept them if Corning failed to price match.
I'm not sure how Corning has any power here? An exclusivity contract is typically for a period of time and simply locks in pricing for a buyer. How could the company providing the glass have any power whatsoever over their buyers?
Through their dominance of the market. "Buy only our product or we will raise your prices, and you need us." Pretty simple and obvious stuff here, and also exactly what Intel got dinged for by our government.
Re:Investigating what exactly? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure how Corning has any power here?
The article explains that the European Commission is investigating Corning's potential use of exclusivity contracts to exclude rival glass makers. Power in this context doesn’t necessarily mean forcing buyers but rather creating market conditions that restrict competition. If Corning’s contracts effectively block other suppliers, it could limit choices for phone manufacturers and, ultimately, for consumers.
An exclusivity contract is typically for a period of time and simply locks in pricing for a buyer.
The Commission’s investigation is focused on whether these exclusivity contracts go beyond just locking in prices. According to the article, Corning’s contracts may require phone makers to source "all or nearly all" of their glass from Corning, potentially leaving competitors out of the market. The issue here is not just about pricing but about restricting access for other glass manufacturers.
How could the company providing the glass have any power whatsoever over their buyers?
Corning’s market dominance in smartphone glass means that it may hold significant leverage over device makers. The article suggests that Corning’s exclusivity agreements may limit the ability of device makers to consider alternative suppliers. This power stems from Corning's strong market position and the quality reputation of Gorilla Glass, which gives it an advantage in negotiations that smaller competitors might lack.
Unless the argument is that their glass is so good that other companies are forced to sign exclusive agreements - which sort of defeats the entire argument this is hurting competition.
The quality of Gorilla Glass isn’t in question here. The concern is that Corning may be leveraging its market position to lock out competition, not because of the product’s quality but through restrictive contracts. Even if Gorilla Glass is high-quality, other suppliers should have a fair chance to compete. The investigation aims to ensure that consumers benefit from lower prices and higher-quality products driven by real competition, not by one supplier's dominance.
Maybe they are saying that because they are doing the phone screen glass they also have to do the phone back glass?
There’s no indication in the article that the investigation concerns only the type of glass, like screen vs. back glass. Instead, it’s about whether Corning’s exclusivity agreements have constrained competition across all smartphone glass applications, regardless of where the glass is used.
Its still a stretch that Corning would be in the wrong here.
Corning’s own statement acknowledges the importance of regulatory compliance, and the EU’s investigation is standard procedure in cases of potential antitrust violations. The Commission’s role is to ensure fair competition, and exclusivity contracts that lock in nearly all purchases from one supplier are a valid area for scrutiny. The investigation doesn’t imply guilt—it simply seeks to clarify whether Corning’s business practices have unlawfully restricted competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical suspicion in this case would be "abuse of monopoly position to lock customers in, preventing competition from being able to monetize competing products".
Old AMD vs Intel case is a great example of this. Intel had a contract with OEMs that as long as they sold at least X% of total sales with Intel processors, they got a discount. Going below that number cost vendor that discount. That means becoming uncompetitive with those that have the discount.
AMD came with a much better CPU, invested into product
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the argument is that their glass is so good that other companies are forced to sign exclusive agreements - which sort of defeats the entire argument this is hurting competition.
Errr how does this conclusion follow? If you have the power to force someone into an exclusivity contract how is that anything but hurting competition? You're literally describing at textbook antitrust violation example, an example of something legal if you're a small player while being illegal if you wield significant market power. That's the whole point of antitrust laws.
Its still a stretch that Corning would be in the wrong here.
Read TFA. Corning's agreement allegedly has elements in it which would be antitrust violations even if it weren't abusing its market pow
Can't help but notice... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't help but notice... (Score:4, Informative)
the only companies the EU investigates are foreign
Can't help but notice that you have no idea what you're talking about.
A very recent example: here [msn.com]. European banks Credit Suisse (Switzerland) and Credit Agricole (France) were fined for creating a bond cartel in 2021.
For more examples, see the largest fines the EU gave between 2001 and 2018 here [statista.com]. On the list you'll see Daimler (Germany), Scania (Swedish), DAF (Dutch), SaintGobain (French), Philips (Dutch) and others. Actually, more European companies were fined than American or Asian ones.
And, before you move the goalposts, the reason why American companies got the largest fines is because they're the most egregious perpetrators - they're used to working in the American business ecosystems where they can do pretty much what they want, so having to deal with real regulation doesn't come easy to many of them. This is why you see the likes of Google and Microsoft being hit repeatedly.
In conclusion, your sense of grievance is misplaced and based on sheer ignorance - something we've been seeing much too often lately.
Re: (Score:2)
Hang on, no need to play by the book anymore. America first, EU first! Fine them to hell. Let the games begin. Playing tough is easy. Thanks for the lesson Donald! This is so liberating! (/s)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to "Criticism of Spotify" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and none of the contents mention an abuse of dominant position (words "dominant" and "monopoly" are not present on the page). Maybe it's only an
However, Spotify has been fined (by Sweden) for breach of GDPR https://www.engadget.com/spoti... [engadget.com] ) and was accused of spreading disinformation (Joe Rogan podcast https://ideas.darden.virginia.... [virginia.edu] ), after what the EU tuned the contents of the then-upcoming draft o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My claim is that there is a trend. I do not claim it is done in a systematic way.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...That the only companies the EU investigates are foreign.
This is a broad generalization that doesn’t hold up. The EU has investigated and fined multiple European companies, including Telecom Italia, Deutsche Bahn, and Gazprom, for anticompetitive practices. And let’s not forget, Spotify itself is a Swedish company—hardly “foreign” from the EU’s perspective.
Example - Spotify seems to have a clear monopoly on free streaming music...
Spotify is not a monopoly in free music streaming. In the EU and globally, there are multiple competitors in this space, including YouTube Music, Apple Music, Amazon Music,
Re: (Score:1)
...That the only companies the EU investigates are foreign.
Is this because you're foreign and the only news sites you visit are foreign? The EU investigates it's own countries constantly and far more frequently than foreigners. You just don't read about it because you're in your little foreign bubble.
Secret Ingredient is: (Score:2)