Corning faces antitrust actions for its Gorilla Glass dominance

European Commission looks into alleged exclusivity, pricing, and patent demands.

See full article...

 

[Quantum Fish]

Until they have been proven to be breaking the law, I will espouse my feelings for them however I see fit.

Innocent until proven guilty is how we do it, not innocent until accused.

You literally had a whole post about how you support them because you like them, in which you completely dismissed the the anticompetitive behaviour they’re being investigated for on the grounds that you like the company.

And you ended your comment preemptively complaining about downvotes, because you know exactly what kind of post you made.

That’s not supporting “innocent until proven guilty”. That’s just blindly supporting your team because you like your team. Tribal behaviour.

If the investigation finds that Corning was not being anticompetitive, that’s great! But you’re not presenting evidence to support the likelihood of that scenario, you’re just presenting feelings and saying that you support them regardless.

 

[darkowl]

This has to be a joke.
No one wanted CV-Glass, AKA Superfest AKA Ceverit. It was a German glass that got shunned.

From what I can tell from a cursory read, Corning was experimenting with ion-exchange techniques in the mid 60s. CV-Glass was patented around 1977. It seems incorrect to say CV came first?

 

[KingKrayola]

What if Apple or Samsung willingly offered 5 years of exclusivity in exchange for lowered pricing or guaranteed supply? Would it be illegal for Corning to accept?

I’ve read that automakers, because of the complexity of their business and the breadth of their supply lines, prioritize certainty across a multiple-year timeline in their contract negotiations and regulatory lobbying. I can’t imagine that electronics manufacturing is significantly different.

I don't think offering exclusive terms as a buyer is a problem as that isn't interfering with anyone else's deals. It's when the seller demands it that it's a problem.

Supply chain management is a field in itself but multi-year contracts and options are where futures trading starts to come in, especially for limited supplies like aerospace fasteners or exotic alloys that may only be made in one batch a year.

In many cases though firms want two or three suppliers so that if one has issues (e.g. Rolls Royce engines on the 787-10) another can supply.

 

[Fast Turtle]

As to Apple and TSMC, keep in mind that Apple paid them to develop their 3nm node meaning that many of the advances that TSMC have created in regards to nodes was due to Apple Providing the initial funding along with the purchase of that node output. Why in hell do you think everyone is no jumping on the n5 node from TSMC? It's beause Apple has already moved to the N3 and is actively funding the n2+/n2 node development.

 

[johnbramhall]

Exactly. May the best glass win!

and .... if the Corning glass wasn't so slippery it would not actually need to be so tough. My iPhone 14 is essentially unusable without some type of case/cover because of the soap-like behavior of the glass back and polished metal sides. I'm waiting for Apple to rediscover woven carbon fiber - or some equivalent - as a better material for the phone structure behind the screen. I guess ergonomics has never been part of the Apple strong suit where form often triumphs over function.

 

[fknuckles]

Oxymoron. It can be crystal, or glass, but not both at the same time.

Could it be a simian and also glass at the same time? Your user name seems to check out.

 

[fenris_uy]

Meh, I'm on Corning's side on this one.

Not for a legal reason, not because I think they should be allowed to do whatever, but it's fricking Corning; they've advanced glass science so much in so many ways, they should be thanked, and left alone to keep ginning up miracles.

"Waah, but no one can compete because Corning won't let them play on a level field..."

No, they can't play because there is no level field, because they are not, and never will be, Corning. No one will beat them at the game they invented.

(downvote all you want, I don't care, Corning is one of the few truly amazing US companies to me)

That's called patents, they are allowed to take patents and only them can sell their patented products. And competitors can create competing products without using Corning patents. But Corning should not be saying "You want to buy our patented glass for your flagship at the same price as your competitors, then you can't use other companies to supply glass for your budget phones".

 

[fenris_uy]

They provide special benefits to customers that agree to only use Corning fiber.

And that's what is going to get them in trouble if they do the same with the phone glass.

Remember that Microsoft lost a monopoly case about putting a browser in their OS. Something that everybody, even back then got for free. Netscape was only free for educational uses, but it had the same protections as WinRar about people using it for free forever.

 

[sjl]

Innocent until proven guilty is how we do it, not innocent until accused.

That's for criminal cases.

This isn't a criminal case. It's an investigation. It may lead to a criminal case, but it isn't there yet. The EU is basically saying, "We have reason to believe that there may be shenanigans, so we're looking into it." This is kind of like the police saying, "We have reason to believe that there's a drug factory at this specific address, so we're looking into it." Maybe it's all above board. Maybe it's not. That's what the investigation is for. So now the EU is going to ask Corning, and Corning's competitors and customers, to provide information to the investigation; after all that's done and looked at, the question of whether or not to prosecute arises.

You are welcome to your opinion of whether or not Corning is guilty of behaving in an anti-competitive way, but your comment is dangerously close to "if you don't have proof, you can't investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour". Which would amount to rendering anti-trust legislation completely toothless, because if you can't investigate, you can't prove (or disprove) allegations.

 

[Chuckstar]

For the foreseeable

You're inverting cause and effect. Monopoly's stifle competition. The resulting products are superior not in terms of excellence, but in terms of having prevented alternatives from ever reaching the market. The goal of capitalism is dominance. The rest is incidental. This is one of many reasons why the "free" market is an insane, unjust god.

Maintaining a monopoly can also provide economic rents that allow you to continue to improve the product faster than competitors. If that's the only dynamic at play, though, it's typically not considered anti-competitive. It's just considered good business to roll outsized profits from a great product into it continuing to be market-leading. However, if you also engage in shenanigans to maintain the monopoly, then roll those profits into R&D...

 

[plugh]

crystal in this context is a type of glass.

from google:

Composition: Crystal is made in the same way as glass, but with different materials. Traditionally, crystal glass was made by replacing calcium in glass with lead oxide, which increases the glass's refractive index and makes it sparkle more. Modern crystal glass often contains barium or zinc instead of lead.

Sapphire, however, is a crystal and not a glass.

“crystal glass” is a type of glass as described above, generally used for decorative glass, and has nothing to do with sapphire.

 

[Crackhead Johny]

From what I can tell from a cursory read, Corning was experimenting with ion-exchange techniques in the mid 60s. CV-Glass was patented around 1977. It seems incorrect to say CV came first?

Hmm. Well all I know is what I read years ago when I found they made the perfect beer glass and no one would make them. After that the glass got picked up to make gorilla glass screens.
If this is wrong that is on me for believing Wikipedia (the facts anyone can edit).

 

[chaos215bar2]

crystal in this context is a type of glass.

from google:

Composition: Crystal is made in the same way as glass, but with different materials. Traditionally, crystal glass was made by replacing calcium in glass with lead oxide, which increases the glass's refractive index and makes it sparkle more. Modern crystal glass often contains barium or zinc instead of lead.

If we really want to be pedantic, sapphire crystal and sapphire “glass” are synonymous, and are actually crystalline Al2O3. (Apparently there are polycrystalline forms produced for industrial applications, but AFAIK everything used in consumer products, primarily watches, is of the more expensive single-crystal variant. And polycrystalline still isn’t the same as glass.)

“Crystal” glass is what you’re describing, and is indeed glass, usually leaded for increased index of refraction, though “crystal” can also more generically refer to certain styles of glassware regardless of composition.

Back to the original point, consumers never really got a choice. They just bought their favorite phone, and generally trusted the manufacturer to choose an appropriate material. Which is the point of the lawsuit, if anticompetitive practices were involved.

 

[Chuckstar]

Sapphire, however, is a crystal and not a glass.

“crystal glass” is a type of glass as described above, generally used for decorative glass, and has nothing to do with sapphire.

Basically, "crystal" and "glass" are not always well-defined, depending on context. The context of the article sort of puts us on the cusp of materials science and economics.

To a materials scientist, "crystal" is a material whose atoms are arranged in a regular lattice.

To an economist, "crystal" is what champagne is served in.

 

[SirRoderick]

They have an issue with it being a successful American company and the EU won’t stop……

The EU applies the same rules and regulations to all companies. There are plenty of American companies that do not run afoul of them and plenty of European ones that get slapped with fines as well. The fact that all the headline worthy ones tend to be American has more to do with American business culture than any sort of bias.

Corning can be plenty successful and also play fair. And this investigation may well determine that they do, if those are the facts.

 

[Mongo McMongo]

Isn't the EU the same organization that prohibits you calling products like parmegiano or champagne just because, despite quality of product being potentially EXACTLY the same, its just because you're more than an inch outside an imaginary line drawn by a lobby group? Doesn't that seem...like unfair competitive practices?

Protected designation of origin isn't just an EU thing - see https://napavintners.com/about/napa_name_protection.asp

 

[mfirst]

"no Gorilla glass for you" - cue up the Soup N scene from Steinfeld.

Seriously, maybe Corning can just take their Glass and go home and tell the EU to pound sand.

Their product to viewed as such a key component/feature to modern phones - and so superior to anything else that I would like to see what the consumers would say if it was not available. I know that the EU is such a massive market that no one wants to ignore, but I can see a future in which companies are willingly pull themselves out of markets rather than dealing with such painful regulation.

not sure I understand the downvotes - but ok, such is life on the internet
however, I am in "healthcare" and there is a growing trend towards hospitals closing and big companies pulling out of markets because it hurts their bottom line (thanks to private equity) - why is it so far fetched to wonder when companies are going to start pulling out of areas in which the administrative and/or legal headaches are just not worth the effort..... this is nothing new.

whether these companies "deserve" the fines and punishments is a different story...... at some point doesnt the cost of doing business greater than the benefits?

 

[anorlunda]

It appears that the EU's antimonopoly wrath only applies to American companies. Are there counter-examples of the EU moving against European or Chinese monopolies?

 

[ChicagoCurmudgeon]

It's my understanding that Corning's dominance is due to them having (by far) the highest performing product on the market. Over the years consumers have shunned Sapphire Crystal glass for Corning's Gorilla Glass. How do you break a "monopoly" on a superior product?

I am not sure whether Gorilla Glass is still patent protected, or perhaps trade secret protected. Sure, there are iterations, but eventually the last iteration has to compete with the first iteration. Also, at some the price point of inferior substitutes still exerts enough pressure to at least keep the price of Gorilla Glass down.

For US law, I don't think the relevant market is Gorilla Glass, but rather glass generally or glass for cell phones in particular. The EU has competition law, not antitrust law, so thinking of what is going on in US terms is inaccurate. Maybe the relevant market is Gorilla Glass and close substitutes there. So, the notification about competing bids (essentially open bidding), may be more problematic there.

 

[johnbramhall]

To an economist, "crystal" is what champagne is served in.

Or what champagne is served

 

[marmelade]

The EU is just pathetic. They're not going to somehow magically stimulate EU tech development with these anticompetitive measures.

 

[plugh]

To a materials scientist, "crystal" is a material whose atoms are arranged in a regular lattice.

To an economist, "crystal" is what champagne is served in.

That was great!

I’m going to remember that line when discussing economists jumping into fields they don’t understand.

 

[sxotty]

Those are undoubtedly monopoly/anticompetitive practices. Corning makes/made really neat stuff. Their museum was cool when I went years ago. It is to bad they did these things to try to keep their position.

 

[stormspace9]

If that was the extent of it there would be no issue, and nothing to investigate. Having the market look like that is the EU’s goal in fact; with companies competing with price and products.

But if Corning is using anti-competitive contracts with its customers to ensure potential competitors are stifled and prevented from even attempting to compete? That behavior needs to be stopped.

I'm trying to understand how an anticompetitive contract would work. If Corning's patent is still valid and phone companies want to use that technology they'd have to pay for it. Maybe Corning is saying if you want to use our glass in your product you have to use it on all your products with glass? That might not be anti competitive if the agreement includes a price break.

If the EU is saying their glass needs to be offered by multiple manufacturers I don't see how that works if their patent hasn't expired.

Edit: I read the article a little more closely and that bit about reporting competitive manufacturers offers seems a little sketchy, but I don't see how offering rebates makes them a monopoly. It is the EU however and sometimes their decisions leave me scratching my head.

 

[stormspace9]

It appears that the EU's antimonopoly wrath only applies to American companies. Are there counter-examples of the EU moving against European or Chinese monopolies?

I get the same impression, but I seem to remember a case where China was the focus of the action. If Corning is saying use it on all your devices if you use it on one, I can see the reasoning behind that. Imagine using GG on a flag ship phone and then displaying that phone along with your others where it isn't clear which phones it's offered on. That type of marketing might devalue the Corning brand if people think they have GG and it breaks on them because it isn't.

There has to be more to this than we are seeing.

 

[DKlimax]

From my experience in the past as a Corning quasi-employee and later a Corning customer on the fiber side:
1. Corning is cautious about potential antitrust issues when it has a dominant market position. Back in the day, we had to attend training on this.

2. Corning likes to control their customers while wearing velvet gloves. They provide special benefits to customers that agree to only use Corning fiber.

3. Corning is aggressive about defending its patents. My impression is that they're careful to respect others' patents if the patents are strong.

4. Corning has good lawyers and seems scrupulous about avoiding legal exposure while competing ruthlessly with a genteel demeanor.

5. They're often smarter than their competitors on both the technical and commercial.

I'd be surprised if Corning has blatantly broken the law. Not surprised if they broke the spirit of the law.

As a customer I got involved in a 3-way dispute with Corning and another competitor involving #1 and #2 above. The competitor and a rogue Corning salesperson put Corning on the spot antitrust-wise. Corning fixed the problem quickly when someone whispered "antitrust". The rogue employee either left Corning or was canned.

Points 1. and 2. are completely incongruent with each other. Either they avoid anti-competitive law or they do breaching contracts.

It appears that the EU's antimonopoly wrath only applies to American companies. Are there counter-examples of the EU moving against European or Chinese monopolies?

Of course. Get your lazy ass over to your favourite search engine and start looking. It's high time you cured your ignorance. Ars writers won't do it for you...

I get the same impression, but I seem to remember a case where China was the focus of the action. If Corning is saying use it on all your devices if you use it on one, I can see the reasoning behind that. Imagine using GG on a flag ship phone and then displaying that phone along with your others where it isn't clear which phones it's offered on. That type of marketing might devalue the Corning brand if people think they have GG and it breaks on them because it isn't.

There has to be more to this than we are seeing.

Obviously. Get yourself over to your favourite search engine and start looking. Ars writers are not going to and are not able to help you

Both of you already have keywords so it shoudl be trivial excerise...

 

[DeeplyUnconcerned]

Points 1. and 2. are completely incongruent with each other. Either they avoid anti-competitive law or they do breaching contracts.


Of course. Get your lazy ass over to your favourite search engine and start looking. It's high time you cured your ignorance. Ars writers won't do it for you...


Obviously. Get yourself over to your favourite search engine and start looking. Ars writers are not going to and are not able to help you

Both of you already have keywords so it shoudl be trivial excerise...

It’s not totally straightforward to locate, so here’s the link: https://competition-cases.ec.europa...sortField=caseLastDecisionDate&sortOrder=DESC

 

[Oldmanalex]

If we really want to be pedantic, sapphire crystal and sapphire “glass” are synonymous, and are actually crystalline Al2O3. (Apparently there are polycrystalline forms produced for industrial applications, but AFAIK everything used in consumer products, primarily watches, is of the more expensive single-crystal variant. And polycrystalline still isn’t the same as glass.)

“Crystal” glass is what you’re describing, and is indeed glass, usually leaded for increased index of refraction, though “crystal” can also more generically refer to certain styles of glassware regardless of composition.

Back to the original point, consumers never really got a choice. They just bought their favorite phone, and generally trusted the manufacturer to choose an appropriate material. Which is the point of the lawsuit, if anticompetitive practices were involved.

A glass is technically a supercooled liquid with no element of periodicity in placing of the atoms in the solid, so if you head out in a certain direction from any given atom, you never never see a repeating pattern of atoms, so in AB, heading from A one might next see A, then B, then another A, then a void, then another A, then a void, then B etc.. A crystal will have periodicity, such that element A will be here, and x nM away, and usually 2x, 3x, 4x etc distance away. Some crystals are very complex, and the periodicity may be difficult to determine, but it will be there. Also there are quasicrystals, thank you Roger Penrose, where there is no true absolute periodicity, but the distortions from true periodicity are always the same.

 

[Chuckstar]

A glass is technically a supercooled liquid with no element of periodicity in placing of the atoms in the solid, so if you head out in a certain direction from any given atom, you never never see a repeating pattern of atoms, so in AB, heading from A one might next see A, then B, then another A, then a void, then another A, then a void, then B etc.. A crystal will have periodicity, such that element A will be here, and x nM away, and usually 2x, 3x, 4x etc distance away. Some crystals are very complex, and the periodicity may be difficult to determine, but it will be there. Also there are quasicrystals, thank you Roger Penrose, where there is no true absolute periodicity, but the distortions from true periodicity are always the same.

The idea that glass is some kind of liquid just won't die.

Glass is an amorphous solid, not a supercooled liquid.

Also, I'm confused by your wording that a quasicrystal's distortions from true periodicity are always the same. My understanding of a quasicrystal is that it is ordered over the short range, but there is no periodicity over the long range. That is, over short distances it looks crystal-like, but over long distances there is no repetition of the pattern. Do you mean that a quasicrystal's has certain given distortions in it and that it's only variations in how far apart those distortions are that make it non-periodic?

 

[Dano40]

That's called patents, they are allowed to take patents and only them can sell their patented products. And competitors can create competing products without using Corning patents. But Corning should not be saying "You want to buy our patented glass for your flagship at the same price as your competitors, then you can't use other companies to supply glass for your budget phones".

Someone else can beat Corning, but it requires research and development engineering and hard work and iteration (oh and you have to go find your own customers) far too many companies, governments don’t want to put in the hard work. They just want someone else to give them something for free after the fact. Gorilla glass was invented in the mid 1960s and it was sitting on the shelf but somehow Steve Jobs got wind of it and Corning originally didn’t want to even use it but Steve Jobs insisted.

Like I said before the EU is running interference for some EU based glass company.

 

[Dano40]

[citation needed]

Search Apple Crystal sapphire Apple tried with another company that failed.

 

[NetMage]

Thinking for a while, this title makes me sad as it is factually incorrect. It should be:

Corning faces antitrust actions for its restrictive deals and licensing​

 

[Atpaw]

I wonder if it's coincidental that Veritasium released a video today which heavily features Gorilla Glass.

 

[DJFriar]

"no Gorilla glass for you" - cue up the Soup N scene from Steinfeld.

Seriously, maybe Corning can just take their Glass and go home and tell the EU to pound sand.

Their product to viewed as such a key component/feature to modern phones - and so superior to anything else that I would like to see what the consumers would say if it was not available. I know that the EU is such a massive market that no one wants to ignore, but I can see a future in which companies are willingly pull themselves out of markets rather than dealing with such painful regulation.

This needs to happen sooner rather than later, especially for Apple and Google. If they both just said goodbye to the EU with their middle fingers raised, I give it 6 months, tops, before that stupid digital markets act was repealed and all the fines dropped.

The cluelessness of the EC when it comes to the mobile phone market is just astounding, and now they are complaining that them being geofenced because of their own rule making is also now anti-competitive? They seem to be running full speed to get to that cross over where it really does make more financial sense to just leave the EU than to remain and deal with fines.