8. Conclusions
Despite the law lagging behind technological progress, competition law still plays an effective role in ensuring that dominant players do not abuse their position. The continued utility of competition laws is evident in the range and number of investigations into potential platform monopolies and on in-built restrictions on software choices. Additionally, the issue of aftermarkets arising from infrastructure dominance has been recognised and will be a useful analogy for investigations into cloud after-markets. Although competitors will need to prove a relevant market, this may become an easier hurdle to clear as the take-up of cloud computing becomes more mainstream.
The Merger Regulations also operate to provide visibility over all notified mergers that could result in an impediment to competition in a market. The Cisco/Tandberg acquisition is an example of the Commission’s power to investigate the competition effects on cloud communication services, and power to require commitments involving interoperability and licensing of intellectual property.
Decisions such as the 2007 Microsoft interoperability judgment have identified that technical compatibility is essential to continued competition in technology markets. Intellectual property laws, as well as standardisation, affect technical interoperability (and thus competition in cloud services) indirectly. Regulators are able to indirectly promote competition by raising interoperability, through promoting technical and legal standards for example.
Although Big Data raises new challenges for regulators, competition and other laws indirectly affecting competition will continue to be effective and ‘technology neutral’ in their application to the cloud computing industry.
