system are facing an antitrust investigation in Europe.

But the roots of the pro

be stretch across the Atlantic and well into the past.
In 2010, enterprise software giant Oracle sued Google over the way Android made
use of the Java programming language. Oracle had assumed control of Java a year
earlier, after purchasing one-time tech powerhouse Sun Microsystems, and its sui
t claimed that Google had infringed on Java-related patents and copyrights. But
the case turned up documents that would help spark a very different investigatio
n in the Europe.
The trial revealed various contracts in which Google required phone makers to bu
ndle certain Google services when using its Android operating system, such as Go
ogle Sesystem are facing an antitrust investigation in Europe. But the roots of
the probe stretch across the Atlantic and well into the past.
In 2010, enterprise software giant Oracle sued Google over the way Android made
use of the Java programming language. Oracle had assumed control of Java a year
earlier, after purchasing one-time tech powerhouse Sun Microsystems, and its sui
t claimed that Google had infringed on Java-related patents and copyrights. But
the case turned up documents that would help spark a very different investigatio
n in the Europe.
The trial revealed various contracts in which Google required phone makers to bu
ndle certain Google services when using its Android operating system, such as Go
ogle Search, Google Maps, and the Google app store (a.k.a. Google Play) and bundle
them at the expense of other services from third parties. These contracts which h
ad been discussed in the press and behind closed doors for years became the basis
for an antitrust complaint brought to the EU by FairSearch, a consortium of comp
anies that includes Oracle, Microsoft, Nokia, and many others, alleging that Goo
gle s Android practices are anti-competitive.
One way in which this case was helped forward was the trial between Oracle and Go
ogle, says Dieter Paemen, a Brussels-based lawyer with the multi-national law fir
m Clifford Chance, who represents FairSearch and was part of the team that filed
the complaint in the EU. The core evidence comes originally from there.
Paeman and FairSearch filed their complaint in April 2013. A Portuguese company
called Aptoide lodged an additional complaint more than a year later. And this m
onth, the European Commission announced that it s opening a formal investigation i
nto Android, indicating that it s probing the kinds of contracts that surfaced dur
ing the Oracle trial.
Google denies any wrongdoing. Anyone can use Android without Google and anyone ca
n use Google without Android, a company spokesman tells us. Since Android s introduc
tion, greater competition in the smartphone market has given consumers more and
better choices. And it points out that the United States Federal Trade Commission
and the Korean Fair Trade Commission have examined Google s agreements around And
roid and did not sanction the company.
Nonetheless, enormous and enormously complex forces have gathered against Google in
Europe. The ties to the Google-Oracle only begin to show the scope of this battl
e. As the commission investigates Android nudged by Oracle, Microsoft, Aptoide, an
d others it has issued a formal statement of objections against Google s search prac
tices, which could lead to penalties against the company later this year. A much
longer list of rivals, including many of big German online publishers as well a
s U.S companies such as a Yelp, Expedia, and TripAdvisor, are pushing for change
s in other Google services that threaten the core of Google s mobile business mode
l. And the various threads running through these cases reinforce each other in s
o many ways.

It s the EU s biggest antitrust action against an American tech company since it lev
ied charged against Microsoft and its Windows operating system in 2000, which ev
entually resulted in huge fines for the company and notable changes to its techn
ology. This time, the tables have turned, but the case is playing out in similar
ways. Like the Microsoft case before it, the Google Android case is about bundl
ing applications with an operating systems (though the arguments are somewhat mo
re complicated because Android is open source). And according to some, it could
also result in large fines or remedies or both.
It s telling that before serving the Microsoft-backed coalition that brought a com
plaint against Google, Paeman was part of the legal team that fought against Mic
rosoft the last time around. At one point, he fought against Microsoft on behalf
of Oracle. This time around, many of the positions have changed. But the stakes
are just as high. And the forces are just as strong.
The Android Case Is More Conventional
The EU s search case is closer to completion. After five years of investigation an
d a formal statement of objections, the commission could issue a remedy by the e
nd of the year. But according to Paul Lugard, a Brussels-based antitrust lawyer
with the multi-national firm Baker Botts, who has no connection to the many comp
anies involves in this legal melee, the Android case may be the greater threat t
o Google. The competitive harm is a little bit easier to establish than in the se
arch case, he says. The Android case is more conventional.
American regulators haven t pursued action against Google in this area, but as Lug
ard says, the burden of proof in such cases isn t as high in Europe as in the U.S.
The process in Europe is more formalistic and less economics-effects driven than
in the U.S, he says. In other words, the EU doesn t have to work as hard to show t
hat consumers and competitors have been harmed.
Because the commission has now opened a formal investigation after a long informal
investigation, so to speak the chances are good that regulators issue a statement
of objections involving Android, according to Lugard. It should be noted, howev
er, the search case dragged on for five years before a formal statement of objec
tions arrived.
The End Result
The search case and the Java trial in the States have also shown that Google s rivals
are intent on fighting for remedies for years on end. At one point, the search c
ase seemed close to a settlement, but many Google competitors continued to push
for something more. And many of the same names are behind the push against Andro
id, including Microsoft, Oracle, and Foundem, the tiny UK company that filed the
first search complaint against Google.
The forces mounting against Google are sometimes difficult to understand. What i
s Oracle s interest in services bundled on Android? It s a company that sells databa
ses and computer servers. But these forces are enormous, and whatever their moti
vations, their case as Lugard says has some teeth to it.
What is the end result? If the commission does crack down on Android, we may see
a large fine against the company, Logan says. Or we may see a dissolution of th
ose Google contracts with handset makers. That may be the biggest threat to Goog
le. Googles doesn t make money from Android. It makes money from the ad-driven ser
vices that run atop the OS. And with Oracle, Microsoft, and so many others pushi
ng so hard, those services may lose at least part of their foothold
One way in which this case was helped forward was the trial between Oracle and Go
ogle, says Dieter Paemen, a Brussels-based lawyer with the multi-national law fir
m Clifford Chance, who represents FairSearch and was part of the team that filed
the complaint in the EU. The core evidence comes originally from there.

Paeman and FairSearch filed their complaint in April 2013. A Portuguese company
called Aptoide lodged an additional complaint more than a year later. And this m
onth, the European Commission announced that it s opening a formal investigation i
nto Android, indicating that it s probing the kinds of contracts that surfaced dur
ing the Oracle trial.
Google denies any wrongdoing. Anyone can use Android without Google and anyone ca
n use Google without Android, a company spokesman tells us. Since Android s introduc
tion, greater competition in the smartphone market has given consumers more and
better choices. And it points out that the United States Federal Trade Commission
and the Korean Fair Trade Commission have examined Google s agreements around And
roid and did not sanction the company.
Nonetheless, enormous and enormously complex forces have gathered against Google in
Europe. The ties to the Google-Oracle only begin to show the scope of this battl
e. As the commission investigates Android nudged by Oracle, Microsoft, Aptoide, an
d others it has issued a formal statement of objections against Google s search prac
tices, which could lead to penalties against the company later this year. A much
longer list of rivals, including many of big German online publishers as well a
s U.S companies such as a Yelp, Expedia, and TripAdvisor, are pushing for change
s in other Google services that threaten the core of Google s mobile business mode
l. And the various threads running through these cases reinforce each other in s
o many ways.
It s the EU s biggest antitrust action against an American tech company since it lev
ied charged against Microsoft and its Windows operating system in 2000, which ev
entually resulted in huge fines for the company and notable changes to its techn
ology. This time, the tables have turned, but the case is playing out in similar
ways. Like the Microsoft case before it, the Google Android case is about bundl
ing applications with an operating systems (though the arguments are somewhat mo
re complicated because Android is open source). And according to some, it could
also result in large fines or remedies or both.
It s telling that before serving the Microsoft-backed coalition that brought a com
plaint against Google, Paeman was part of the legal team that fought against Mic
rosoft the last time around. At one point, he fought against Microsoft on behalf
of Oracle. This time around, many of the positions have changed. But the stakes
are just as high. And the forces are just as strong.
The Android Case Is More Conventional
The EU s search case is closer to completion. After five years of investigation an
d a formal statement of objections, the commission could issue a remedy by the e
nd of the year. But according to Paul Lugard, a Brussels-based antitrust lawyer
with the multi-national firm Baker Botts, who has no connection to the many comp
anies involves in this legal melee, the Android case may be the greater threat t
o Google. The competitive harm is a little bit easier to establish than in the se
arch case, he says. The Android case is more conventional.
American regulators haven t pursued action against Google in this area, but as Lug
ard says, the burden of proof in such cases isn t as high in Europe as in the U.S.
The process in Europe is more formalistic and less economics-effects driven than
in the U.S, he says. In other words, the EU doesn t have to work as hard to show t
hat consumers and competitors have been harmed.
Because the commission has now opened a formal investigation after a long informal
investigation, so to speak the chances are good that regulators issue a statement
of objections involving Android, according to Lugard. It should be noted, howev
er, the search case dragged on for five years before a formal statement of objec

tions arrived.
The End Result
The search case and the Java trial in the States have also shown that Google s rivals
are intent on fighting for remedies for years on end. At one point, the search c
ase seemed close to a settlement, but many Google competitors continued to push
for something more. And many of the same names are behind the push against Andro
id, including Microsoft, Oracle, and Foundem, the tiny UK company that filed the
first search complaint against Google.
The forces mounting against Google are sometimes difficult to understand. What i
s Oracle s interest in services bundled on Android? It s a company that sells databa
ses and computer servers. But these forces are enormous, and whatever tkkkkkkkkk
kkkkddddddd
ddddddddddddd
dddddddddd
ddddddddddd
ddddddddddddddd
ddddddddddheir motivations, their case as Lugard says has some teeth to it.
What is the end result? If the commission does crack down on Android, we may see
a large fine against the company, Logan says. Or we may see a dissolution of th
ose Google contracts with handset makers. That may be the biggest threat to Goog
le. Googles doesn t make money from Android. It makes money from the ad-driven ser
vices that run atop the OS. And with Oracle, Microsoft, and so many others pushi
ng so hard, those services may lose at least part of their foothold