BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

İNTERNETİN EZBER BOZAN ORTAMINDA VE YENİLİKÇİ DİJİTAL PAZARLARDA REKABET HUKUKU EĞİLİMLERİ

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 62, 43 - 109, 01.06.2015

Gönenç Gürkaynak Derya Durlu Gürzumar

Öz

Teşebbüslerin internet ortamındaki faaliyetlerinin hızla yayılmasıyla birlikte, bu faaliyetlerde, rekabet hukuku ilke ve parametrelerini geleneksel yaklaşım yerine, daha esnek bir değerlendirmeyle ele alan uygulama yöntemlerini tercih etmenin doğru olup olmayacağı sorusunun önemi artmıştır.Bu çalışmada internet ortamı ve dijital platformların özelliklerinin neler olduğu açıklandıktan sonra Amerika Birleşik Devletleri ve Avrupa Birliği ülkelerindeki gelişmeler ışığında, şu konular incelenmiştir: i Özellikle Google’ın ve Apple’ın elektronik kitap uygulamaları hakkında açılan soruşturmalarda rekabet otoritelerinin benimsediği yaklaşım çerçevesinde, teşebbüslerarası anlaşmalardaki fiyat tespitleri; ii Google hakkında yürütülmüş olan iki soruşturma ışığında, internet ortamında oluşan pazarlarda hâkim durum ve kötüye kullanılması meselesi; iii Google/Motorola Mobility Inc. işlemi bağlamında, rekabet otoritelerinin, internet ortamında faaliyet gösteren teşebbüslerin birleşme-devralma işlemleri hakkındaki yaklaşımı. Çalışmanın sonuç kısmında internet ortamındaki teşebbüs faaliyetleri bakımından rekabet hukukunda gelinen nokta özetlenmiş ve olası açılımlar hakkında önerilerde bulunulmuştur

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnternet Ortamı Dijital Platformlar Google Apple

Kaynakça

  • Akademik Çalışmalar
  • ALEXANDROV, A., G. DELTAS ve D.F. SPULBER (2011), “Competition and Antitrust in Two-Sided Markets”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 7, s. 775-812.
  • ARMSTRONG, M. (2006), “Competition in Two-Sided Markets”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 37, s. 668-691.
  • BADUR, E. (2001), “Rekabet Hukukunda Fiyat Sınırlamaları”, Rekabet Dergisi, Sayı 7.
  • CAILLAUD, B. ve B. JULLIEN (2003),”Chicken and Egg: Competition Among Intermediation Service Providers”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 34, s. 309- 328.
  • CARLTON, D. ve J. PERLOFF (2005), Modern Industrial Organization, Fourth Edition, R.R.Donnelley & Sons Co., USA.
  • ÇETİNKAYA, M. (2003), İlgili Pazar Kavramı ve İlgili Pazar Tanımında Kullanılan Nicel Teknikler, 1. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • EBLEN, C.C. (2004), “Defining the Geographic Market in Modern Commerce: The Effect of Globalization and E-Commerce on Tampa Electric and Its Progeny”, 56 Baylor L. Rev. 49.
  • ELHAUGE, E: (2009), “Framing the Antitrust Issues in the Google Books Settlement”, Competition Policy International, GCP: The Antitrust Chronicle, Sayı 2
  • http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/pdf/Elhauge%20Framing%20 the%20Issues%20in%20the%20Google%20Books%20Settlement%20CPI%20 article.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • ELHAUGE, E: (2010), “Why the Google Books Settlement is Procompetitive”, Journal of Legal Analysis, Cilt 2, Sayı 1.
  • EVANS, D.S. (2003), “The Antitrust Economics of Multi-Sided Platform Markets”, Yale Journal on Regulation, Vol. 20, s. 325-381.
  • EVANS, D.S. (2008), “Antitrust Issues Raised by the Emerging Global Internet Economy”, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 285.
  • EVANS, D.S. (2012), “Two-Sided Markets”, Amerikan Barolar Birliği Rekabet Hukuku Bölümü (der.), Market Definition In Antitrust: Theory And Case Studies içinde, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1396751, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • FILISTRUCCHI, L., D. GERADIN ve A.P., VAN DAMME (2014), “Market Definition in Two-Sided Markets: Theory and Practice”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 10, No. 2, s. 293-340.
  • FRASER, E.M. (2010), “Antitrust and the Google Books Settlement: The Problem of Simultaneity”, Stan. Tech. L. Rev. Cilt 4.
  • FRISCHMANN, B. (2009), “Google Books and the Essential Facilities Doctrine”, Madisonian.net, http://madisonian.net/2009/02/15/google-books-and- the-essential-facilities-doctrine/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • GERADIN, D., C. AHLBORN, V. DENICOLÒ ve A.J. PADILLA (2006), “DG Comp’s Discussion Paper on Article 82: Implications of the Proposed Framework and Antitrust Rules for Dynamically Competitive Industries”, SSRN: http://ssrn. com/abstract=894466, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • GEROSKI, P.A. (2003), “Competition in Markets and Competition for Markets”, 3 J. Industry, Competıtıon & Trade 151.
  • GÜRKAYNAK, G. (2003), Türk Rekabet Hukuku Uygulaması İçin “Hukuk ve İktisat” Perspektifinden “Amaç” Tartışması, Türk Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • GÜRKAYNAK, G., D. DURLU ve M. HAGAN (2013), “Antitrust on the Internet: A Comparative Assessment of Competition Law Enforcement in the Internet Realm”, IBA Business Law International, Vol. 14, No. 1.
  • GRIMMELMAN, J. (2009), “How to Fix the Google Book Search Settlement”, Journal of Internet Law, Vol. 12, No. 10, http://james.grimmelmann.net/files/ articles/how-to-fix.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • GRIMMELMANN, J. (2011), “The Elephantine Google Books Settlement”, Copyright Society of the USA.
  • GÜNDÜZ, H. (2010), Çift Taraflı Pazarlarda Rekabet Hukuku Uygulamaları, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No.106, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • GÜNDÜZ, R. (2012), Tek Taraflı Davranışlarda Haklı Gerekçe: AB, ABD Hukuku Uygulamaları ve Türk Hukuku İçin Çıkarımlar, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No. 113, 8. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • GÜVEN, P. (2008), Rekabet Hukuku, Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • HAUSMAN, J.A. ve G. SIDAK (2009), “Google and the Proper Antitrust Scrutiny of Orphan Books”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(3), s. 411-438. KAGAN, J. (2011), “Bricks, Mortar and Google: Defining the Relevant Antitrust Market for Internet-Based Companies”, 55 NY L Sch L Rev 271.
  • KATZ, M. ve C. SHAPIRO (1994), “System Competition and Network Effects”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.8, No.2, http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/ pdfplus/10.1257/jep.8.2.93, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • KIRKWOOD, J.B. (2014), “Collusion to Control a Powerful Customer: Amazon, E-Books, and Antitrust Policy”, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 1, s. 1-63.
  • MOTTA, M. (2004), Competition Policy, Theory and Practice, First Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, US.
  • ONUKLU, N.N. (2007), Geçiş Maliyetlerinin Firma Davranışı ve Pazar Üzerindeki Etkileri – Ardılpazarda [sic] Pazar Gücü, 5. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • PATTERSON, M. (1997), “Coercion, Deception, and Other Demand Increasing Practices in Antitrust Law”, 66 Antitrust L.J. 1, s. 1-89.
  • PICKER, R. (2009), “Antitrust and Innovation: Framing Baselines in the Google Book Search Settlement”, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1499482, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • ROCHET, J-C. ve J. TIROLE (2003), “Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets”, Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol.1, s. 990-1029.
  • ROCHET, J-C. ve J. TIROLE (2006), “Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 37, s. 645-667.
  • SAMUELSON, P. (2013), “A Perspective on the Merits of the Antitrust Objections to the Failed Google Books Settlement”, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/antitrust/articles/Samuelson.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SCHUMPETER, J.A. (1976), Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy, Routledge.
  • SEYRANTEPE, İ. (2012), Birleşmelerin Kontrolünde Etkinlik Savunmasının Rolü: Yatay Birleşmeler Temelinde bir Değerlendirme, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No. 116, 8. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • SHAPIRO, C. (1996), “Antitrust in Network Industries” (Konuşma Metni), Conference on Antitrust/Intellectual Property Claims in High Technology Markets, American Law Institute and American Bar Association, San Fransisco https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/518696/download, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SHELANSKI, H.A. (2013), “Information, Innovation and Competition Policy for the Internet”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 161, s. 1663-1705.
  • SIMONS, J.J. ve M.A. WILLIAMS (1993), “The renaissance of market definition”, The Antitrust Buletin, Winter 1993, C. 38, s. 799-857.
  • SLESINGER, R. E. (1995), “The Use of Economic Analysis by the Supreme Court in Applying the Concept of the Relevant Market”, European Journal of Law and Economics, No. 2, s. 227-245.
  • SU, K.T. (2003), Rekabet Hukukunda Teşebbüslerin Hakim Durumunun Belirlenmesinde Pazar Gücünün Ölçülmesi, 1. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • SURBLYTÉ, G. (ed) (2015), Competition on the Internet, MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law 23, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany.
  • TIROLE, J. (2005), “The Analysis of Tying Cases: A Primer”, Competition Policy International, Vol. 1, No. 1, s. 1-25.
  • VAN DER VEER, J.P. (2013), “Antitrust Scrutiny of Most-Favoured-Customer Clauses: An Economic Analysis”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Cilt 4, Sayı 6, s. 501-505.
  • WEBER, R.H. (2013), “Competition Law Issues in the Online World”, 20th St Gallen International Competition Law Forum ICF, http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2341978, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • WOLFE, M. (2014), “The Apple E-Books Agreement and Ruinous Competition: Are E-Goods Different for Antitrust Purposes?”, Duke Law & Technology Review, Cilt 1, Sayı 12, s. 129-150.
  • WU, T. (2012), “Taking Innovation Seriously: Antitrust Enforcement If Innovation Mattered Most”, 78 Antitrust Law Journal 313, s. 313-328.
  • YANIK, M. (2003), Rekabet Hukukunun Hakim Durum ve Hakim Durumun Kötüye Kullanılması Uygulamalarında Piyasa Giriş Engelleri, 1. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • YENİŞEN, D. (2003), Şebeke Dışsallıkları ve Rekabet, 2. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • YILMAZ, H. (2003), Yenilik, Yeni Ekonomi ve Rekabet, 2. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • YOO, C.S. ve D.F. SPULBER (2013), “Antitrust, the Internet, and the Economics of Networks”, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository, Faculty Scholarship Paper 568. Kararlar
  • America Online, Inc v GreatDeals.net, 49 F Supp 2d (ED Va 1999).
  • Avrupa Komisyonu, Case No. COMP/M. 6281 - Microsoft/Skype (07.10.2011).
  • Avrupa Komisyonu, Case No. COMP/M. 6381 - Google/Motorola Mobility (13.02.2012).
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2013), Summary of Commission Decision of 25 July 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.847/E- BOOKS) (notified under document C(2013) 4750) Text with EEA relevance, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1397133984033&uri=CEL EX:52013XC1224(04), Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı (1. Daire), Case No. C-52/09, Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB (17.02.2011).
  • Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı, Case No. 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities (13.02.1979).
  • Brief Amici Curiae Of American Library Association, Association Of College And Research Libraries, And Association Of Research Libraries In Support Of Appellee And Affirmance, Authors Guild v. Google (13-4829-cv), US Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Temyiz Dilekçesi, http://www.arl.org/storage/ documents/publications/amicus-GoogleBooksAppeal-final-8jul2014.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Brown Shoe Co v US, 370 US 294, 325, 82 S Ct 1502, 8 L Ed 2d 510 (1962).
  • Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, Case 6/72 [1973] ECR 215, [1973] CMLR 199.
  • Gerlinger v Amazon.com Inc, 311 F Supp 2d (ND Cal 2004).
  • In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, 545 F Supp 2d (ND Cal 2008).
  • KinderStart.com, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. C 06-2057 JF (RS), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22637 (N.D. Cal. 16.03.2007).
  • LiveUniverse, Inc v Myspace, Inc, CV 06-6994AHMRZX, 2007 WL 6865852 (CD Cal 04.06.2007) aff’d, LiveUniverse, Inc v MySpace, Inc, 304 F App’x 554 (9th Cir 2008).
  • Person v. Google, Inc., No. C 06-07297 JF (RS), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22499, parag. *12 (N.D. Cal. 16.03.2007).
  • Re Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Case No.12-cv-02293, and Texas, et.al. v. Penguin Group, et.al., Case No. 12-cv-03394 (2013), Settlement Agreement By and Among Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Plaintiff States and Settlement Class
  • zMo%3d&tabid=79&mid=451, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Rekabet Kurulu’nun 02.11.2011 tarihli, 11-55/1453-BD sayılı toplantısında aldığı Google/Motorola kararı.
  • Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 125 (2d Cir. 2009).
  • The Authors Guild et.al. v. Google Inc., Case 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), United States District Court Southern District of New York, 14.11.2013, https://cases.justia. com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/1088/0. pdf?ts=1384528543, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • The Authors Guild et. al. v. Google Inc., Case 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), 22.03.2011, Hâkim Denny Chin’in teklif edilen uzlaşmayı reddettiği görüşü, http://isites. harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic982909.files//GBS%20Chen%20Order.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • The Authors Guild et. al. v. Google Inc., Case 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), 02.11.2010, Brief of Google Inc. in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Amended Settlemyn Aagreement (2010), http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic716525.files/ Google%20GBS%20ASA%20Brief%20021110.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • The Authors Guild et.al. v. Google Inc. vd., US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket No. 13-4829-cv (16.10.2015), https://www.eff.org/ files/2015/10/16/agvgoogle.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • TÜRKYAYBİR (12-68/1682-618; 27.12.2012).
  • United States v. Aluminum Corp. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan, The Penguin Group, A Division of Pearson PLC, Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Civil Action, Case No. 1:12- cv-02826 (SDNY 2012), Şikâyet, 11.04.2012, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ f282100/282135.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan, The Penguin Group, A Division of Pearson PLC, Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Civil Action, Case No. 1:12-cv- 02826 (SDNY 2012), Competitive Impact Statement, 08.02.2013, http://www. justice.gov/atr/cases/f292600/292623.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan, The Penguin Group, A Division of Pearson PLC, Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Civil Action, Case No. 1:12-cv- 02826 (SDNY 2012), Competitive Impact Statement, 11.04.2012, s.1-9, http:// www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282143.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., et al. (2013), 12 Civ. 2826 (DLC), http://www.justice. gov/file/486691/download, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc. (2013), 952 F. Supp. 2d 638 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (No. 12- cv-2826), Şikâyet.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., et al. (2013), Final Judgment as to Defendants the Penguin Group, A Division of Pearson PLC, and Penguin Group (USA), Inc. (Civil Action No. 1:12-CV2826 (DLC)), http://www.justice.gov/file/486816/ download, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc. (2015), US Court of Appeals for the 2d Cir., http:// cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-3741/13-3741-2015-06-30. pdf?ts=1435674605, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 394–410 (1956).
  • ABD Adalet Bakanlığı, Federal Ticaret Komisyonu, Avrupa Komisyonu ve Rekabet Kurumu Metinleri
  • Rekabet Kurumu (2015), 24.07.2015 tarihli Booking.com B.V. ile Bookingdotcom Destek Hizmetleri Limited Şirketi Hakkında Soruşturma Açıldığına Dair Duyuru, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/tr-TR/Guncel/Bookingcom-BV-ile-Bookingdotcom- Destek-Hizmetleri-Limited-Sirketi-Hakkinda-Sorusturma-Acildi, Erişim Tarihi: ALMUNIA, J. (2012), “Statement of VP Almunia on the Google antitrust investigation”
  • pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/12/372, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016. ALMUNIA, J. (2013a), “Antitrust enforcement: Challenges old and new” (08.06.2012) (Speech/12/428), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. do?reference=SPEECH/12/428, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • ALMUNIA J. (2013b), “Competition in the online world” (11.11.2013), LSE Public Lecture, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-905_en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2009), “Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings” (2009/C45/02), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009XC0224(01)&from=EN, Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2010), “Antitrust: Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google”, Basın Duyurusu (20.11.2010), http://europa.eu/ rapid/press-release_IP-10-1624_en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2011), “Antitrust: Commission confirms unannounced inspections in the e-book publishing sector”, MEMO/11/126, http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-11-126_en.htm?locale=en
  • Erişim Avrupa Komisyonu (2011b), Opening of Proceedings, 39847 Ebooks, http:// ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39847/39847_4028_3.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2012), “Mergers: Commission approves acquisition of Motorola Mobility by Google”, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-129_ en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2013a), “Antitrust: Commission seeks feedback on commitments offered by Google to address competition concerns”, http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-371_en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2013b), “Market Test Notice”, 2013/C 120/09, http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013XC0426(02)&fr om=EN, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2013c), Basın Duyurusu, “Antitrust: Commission accepts legally binding commitments from Penguin in e-books market”, http://europa.eu/ rapid/press-release_IP-13-746_en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2014), “Antitrust: Commission obtains from Google comparable display of specialised search rivals- Frequently asked questions”, Bilgi Notu
  • http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-87_en.htm?locale=en, Avrupa Komisyonu (2015), “Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on comparison shopping service; opens separate formal investigation on Android”, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_ en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Parlamentosu (2014), “Commitments made at the hearing of Margrethe Vestager, Commissioner for Competition”, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ RegData/etudes/BRIE/2014/536309/IPOL_BRI(2014)536309_EN.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016, s. 3 (“On-going cases” başlığı).
  • Commitments in Case COMP/C-3/39.740 - Foundem and others (2013), http:// ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39740/39740_8608_5.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Competitive Impact Statement (2012), http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ f282100/282143.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Department of Justice (2012), Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Penguin Group (USA) Inc. in E-Books Case, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ justice-department-reaches-settlement-penguin-group-usa-inc-e-books-case, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Europa (2011a), Antitrust Commission Confirms Unannounced Inspections in the e-Book Publishing Sector, (02.03.2011), http://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/126, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Europa (2011b), Antitrust Commission Opens Formal Proceedings to Investigate Sales of e-Books, (06.12.2011), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do? reference=IP/11/1509&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN, Erişim Tarihi: Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2007a), “Federal Ticaret Komisyonu’nun Google/ DoubleClick İşlemine İlişkin Bildirisi” (FTC File No 071-0170) (20.12.2007), www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0710170/071220statement.pdf, 19.03.2016.
  • Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2007b), “Federal Trade Commission Closes Google/DoubleClick Investigation” (20.12.2007) (Press Release), www.ftc.gov/ opa/2007/12/googledc.shtm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2010), “Statement of the Commission Concerning Google/AdMob” (FTC File No 101-0031) (21.05.2010), www.ftc.gov/os/ closings/100521google-admobstmt.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2013a), Federal Ticaret Komisyonu’nun Açıklaması, In the Matter of Google Inc., FTC File No. 111-0163, 03.01.2013, https://www. ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/295971/130103googlesearchs tmtofcomm.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2016.
  • Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2013b), “Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search”, Basın Duyurusu, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/01/google-agrees-change- its-business-practices-resolve-ftc, Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2016.
  • Global Competition Review (2013), Google Sends EU Commitment Offer (01.02.2013)
  • google-sends-eu-commitment-offer/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Google, Organic Search Result¸ https://support.google.com/adwords/ answer/6054492?hl=en, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Google’dan David Drummond’un Federal Ticaret Komisyonu Başkanı Leibowitz’e Gönderdiği Mektup, 27.12.2012, http://static.googleusercontent. com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/pdf/google_ftc_ dec2012.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • OECD (2009), “Roundtable on Two-Sided Markets”, Note by the Delegation of the European Commission, DAF/COMP/WD(2009)69, http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/international/multilateral/2009_jun_twosided.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • OECD (2012), Roundtable on Market Definition, Note by the Delegation of the European Union, DAF/COMP/WD(2012)28, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ international/multilateral/2012_jun_market_definition_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: Rekabet Kurumu (2014), Rekabet Terimleri Sözlüğü, “Şebeke Etkisi”, http:// www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%2FGenel+%C4% B0%C3%A7erik%2Fsozluk%2FRekabet+Terimleri+S%C3%B6zl%C3%BC% C4%9F%C3%BC+5.Bask%C4%B1.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • US DOJ (2009), Statement of the United States of America Regarding Proposed Class Settlement, US DOJ, s. 1-2, 16-25, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ f250100/250180.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • US DOJ (2010a), Justice Department Submits Views on Proposed Google Book Search Settlement, Basın Duyurusu, US DOJ, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/ press_releases/2010/255014.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • US DOJ (2010b), Statement of the United States of America Regarding Proposed Amended Settlement Agreement, US DOJ, s. 1-3, 16-23 (Bölüm II), http://www. justice.gov/atr/cases/f255000/255012.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • US DOJ (2011), “Justice Department Requires Google Inc. to Develop and License Travel Software in Order to Proceed with Its Acquisition of ITA Software Inc” (08.04.2011), www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-at-445.html/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016. Mevzuat
  • /4 Sayılı Rekabet Kurulundan İzin Alınması Gereken Birleşme ve Devralmalar Hakkında Tebliğ, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2 f1%2fDocuments%2fTebli%C4%9F%2f2010-4.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016. 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun, R.G. Tarih: 13.12.1994, R.G. Sayı: 22140.
  • Sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun Madde Gerekçesi
  • http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2f1%2fDocuments%2fGenel+% C4%B0%C3%A7erik%2fmaddegerekceleri. pdf,Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (1997), İlgili Pazarın Tanımına İlişkin Duyuru¸ OJ No. 372, 09.12.1997.
  • Rekabet Kurumu (2008), İlgili Pazarın Tanımlanmasına İlişkin Kılavuz; http:// www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%2FKilavuz%2Fki lavuz5.pdf; Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • OECD Policy Roundtables (2007), “Dynamic Efficiencies in Merger Analysis”, DAF/COMP(2007)41, http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/mergers/40623561. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Sherman Act, 15 USC.
  • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 30.03.2010, OJEU C 83/47- 199. Özgün Eserler
  • BOSMAN, J. (2012), “Judge Approves E-Book Pricing Settlement Between Government and Publishers”, New York Times Media Decoder, http:// mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/judge-approves-e-book-pricing- settlement-between-government-and-publishers/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • CATAN, T. (2011), “Justice Department Confirms E-Book Pricing Probe”, Wall Street Journal Online (18.12.2011), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405 2970203501304577084331269336926.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • ComScore Basın Açıklaması (2012), “ComScore Reports October 2012 U.S. Mobile Subscriber Market Share”, http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_ Releases/2012/11/comScore_Reports_October_2012_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_ Market_Share, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • COURANT, P. (2009), “Google, Robert Darnton, and the Digital Republic of Letters”, Au Courant blog, http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert- darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • DailyTech (2013), “RIP AltaVista: 1995-2003”, http://www.dailytech.com/ RIP+AltaVista+19952013/article31880.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • DARNTON, R. (2009), “Google & the Future of Books”, New York Review of Books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/feb/12/google-the- future-of-books/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • DIW ECON (2009), “Competition In the Web Search Market: A Report for
  • Suchmaschinen_DIWecon_v2.0.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • DOLMANS, M ve A. LEYDEN (2012), “Internet & Antitrust: An overview of EU and national case law”, e-Competitions Bulletin Art. No. 45647.
  • Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (2012), “Consumer Market Study on the Functioning of the Market for Internet Access and Provision from A Consumer Perspective, Final Report”, s.388, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ archive/consumer_research/market_studies/docs/internet-service-study-full_ en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Facebook (2015), “Introducing New Features in Facebook Groups to Improve the Way People Buy and Sell”, Facebook Newsroom, http://newsroom.fb.com/ news/2015/02/introducing-new-features-in-facebook-groups-to-improve-the- way-people-buy-and-sell/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • FairSearch (2013), “FairSearch Announces Complaint in EU on Google’s Anti-Competitive Mobile Strategy”, http://fairsearch.org/fairsearch-announces- complaint-in-eu-on-googles-anti-competitive-mobile-strategy/, Erişim Tarihi: FARREL, M.B. (2012), “Lycos Founder Seeks New Breed of Web Pioneers”, The Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/04/07/lycos- founder-seeks-new-breed-web-pioneers/0ZnsxuYeMv9wmHOL7KRdpJ/story. html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Fortune (2015a), “Google just boosted the odds that it will acquire Twitter”, http://fortune.com/2015/08/04/google-buy-twitter/; Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Fortune (2015b), “Would feds block a Google-Twitter merger? Probably not”, http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/would-feds-block-a-google-twitter-merger- probably-not/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • GILLETTE, F. (2011), “The Rise and Inglorious Fall of Myspace”, Businessweek. com, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_27/b4235053917570. htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • HAUCAP, J. ve T. STÜHMEIER (2015), “Competition and Antitrust in Internet Markets”, Discussion Paper No.199, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics
  • Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche_Fakultaet/DICE/Discussion_Paper/199_Haucap_ Stuehmeier.pdf , Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP) (2013), “Google Under the Antitrust Microscope”, http://www.i-comp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/07/1213_Google_antitrust_lores_screen.pdf
  • ITALIANER, A. (2012), “Innovation and competition”, Fordham Competition Law Institute Conference, 21.09.2012, New York, http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/speeches/text/sp2012_05_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • KANTER, J. (2011), “Brussels Wants 7-Year Limit on Works Digitized by Google”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/business/ global/11google.html?ref=googlebooksearch, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • KARR, J-B. A. (1866), Les Guêpe, Third Edition, Michel Lévy Frères, Paris, France.
  • KEIZER, G. (2011), “Antitrust Fight Against App Store Will Be Tough”, PCWorld.. 17.02.2011, http://www.pcworld.com/article/219861/antitrust_fight_ against_app_store_will_be_tough.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • KOPPEL, N. (2011), “Apple’s Subscription Rules Raise Possible Antitrust Issues.” Wall Street Journal, 16.02.2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014 24052748704409004576146613997208194.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • LOWENSOH, J. (2010), “Report: EU joining FTC Apple probe”, Cnet, 10.08.2010
  • ErişimTarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • LUNDEN, I. (2012), “With DoJ Suit Still In Play, Apple And Four Big Publishers Settle Price Fixing Probe In Europe”, TechCrunch, 13.12.2012, http://techcrunch. com/2012/12/13/with-doj-suit-still-in-play-apple-and-four-big-publishers-settle- price-fixing-probe-in-europe/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • MANARA, C. (2010), “The Italian Competition Authority examines commitments regarding the functioning of Google News (FIEG v. Google)”, e-Competitions Bulletin Art. No. 32135.
  • MANNE, G. (2012), “The procompetitive story that could undermine the DOJ’s e-books antitrust case against Apple”, Technology Liberation Front blog, 12.04.2012, http://techliberation.com/2012/04/12/the-procompetitive-story-that- could-undermine-the-dojs-e-books-antitrust-case-against-apple/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Merriam-Webster, Definition of Internet, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/Internet, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • MEYER, L (2000), “Digital Platforms: Definition and Strategic Value”, Comm. & Strategies, http://www.digiworld.org/fic/revue_telech/540/C&S38_MEYER. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • MILLER, C.C. ve N. WINGFIELD (2013), “Google Pushed Hard Behind the Scenes to Convince Regulators”, New York Times, 03.01.2013, http://www. nytimes.com/2013/01/04/technology/googles-lawyers-work-behind-the-scenes- to-carry-the-day.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • New York Times (2015), “Case Against Google May Be Undercut by Rapid Changes in Technology”, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/technology/ case-against-google-may-be-undercut-by-rapid-shifts-in-tech.html?_r=1, Erişim O’REILLY, T. (2009), “Competition in the eBook Market”, O’Reilly Radar blog, http://toc.oreilly.com/2009/01/competition-in-the-ebook-marke.html, Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • PEARLMAN, J. (2008), “Google Book Search and Orphan Works”, PublicKnowledge blog, http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1843, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Erişim PETIT, N. (2011), “The European Commission is called on to assess whether a company in the online search market has abused of its dominant position under Art. 102 TFEU (Microsoft, Google)”, e-Competitions Bulletin Art. No. 36317.
  • Prezi (2014), “The Rise and Fall of MySpace”, https://prezi.com/jjlt7pbzknpp/ the-rise-and-fall-of-myspace/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • RATLIFF, J. D. ve D. L. RUBINFELD (2011), “Is There a Market for Organic Search Engine Results and Can Their Manipulation Give Rise to Antitrust Liability?”, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2473210, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • RUSHE, D. (2012) “Yahoo: The Rise and Fall of an Internet Pioneer”, Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/20/yahoo-rise-fall-internet- pioneer, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SAUMON, C. (2010) “The French NCA accepts commitments relating to online advertising service (Google AdWords)”, e-Competitions Bulletin Art. No. 33290. SightCall (2014), “SightCall Unveils New Amazon Mayday Like Features for Salesforce at Dreamforce 2014”, SightCall, http://www.sightcall.com/sightcall- unveils-new-amazon-mayday-like-features-salesforce-dreamforce-2014/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SINGAL, J. (2012), “Saying Goodbye to AOL Instant Messenger”, The Daily Beast
  • aol-instant-messenger.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SCOTT-MORTON, F. (2012), “Antitrust Enforcement in High-Technology Industries: Protecting Innovation and Competition”, Remarks as Prepared for the 2012 NYSBA Annual Antitrust Forum Antitrust in High-Tech Markets – Intervention or Restraint, New York, http://www.justice.gov/atr/file/518956/ download, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • STERLING, G. (2012), “Seeking To Pressure Regulators, FairSearch Announces New Members, Issues Missive Seeking “Meaningful” Remedies”, Searchengineland.com
  • regulators-fairsearch-announces-new-members-issues-missive-133713, Erişim http://searchengineland.com/seeking-to-pressure- SULLIVAN, D. (2013), “EU Antitrust Chief: Google “Diverting Traffic” & Will Be Forced To Change”, SearchEngineLand blog, Searchengineland.com, http:// searchengineland.com/eu-antitrust-chief-google-diverting-traffic-will-be-forced- to-change-144824, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • The Digital Reader (2015), “Apple Asks US Supreme Court to Overturn eBook Antitrust Decision”, http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/10/29/apple-asks-us- supreme-court-to-overturn-ebook-antitrust-ruling/, Erişim Tarihi: 29.02.2006.
  • The Digital Reader (2016), “US Appeals Court Upholds Apple eBook Settlement”, http://the-digital-reader.com/2016/02/17/us-appeals-court-upholds-apple-ebook- settlement/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • WhoIsHostingThis (2014), “The Rise and Fall of Instant Messengers”, http:// www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2014/10/22/instant-messengers/; Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • YUYU, C. (2015), “Google to Improve Doorways Algorithm for Better Search Results”, Search Engine Watch, http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/ news/2399920/google-to-improve-doorways-algorithm-for-better-search-results, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.

COMPETITION LAW INCLINATIONS IN THE INTERNET’S GROUND- BREAKING ENVIRONMENT AND INNOVATIVE DIGITAL MARKETS

Yıl 2015, Sayı: 62, 43 - 109, 01.06.2015

Gönenç Gürkaynak Derya Durlu Gürzumar

Öz

Together with the growth of web-based businesses operating on the internet, the question of whether it would be appropriate to prefer competition law principles and parameters that are subjected to more flexible approaches has garnered importunity. After explaining what the characteristics of internet and digital platforms are, this article has examined the following topics in light of the developments observed in the US and EU: i the approaches exhibited by antitrust authorities towards price fixing practices in Google’s and Apple’s e-books cases; ii the issue of dominance and its abuse in light of two distinct cases against Google; iii the competition authorities’ approaches towards internet-based companies’ merger and acquisition cases in relation to the Google/Motorola Mobility Inc. merger deal. The conclusion of this work has sumarized the current state of play of and the potential implications with respect to competition law practices on the internet

Anahtar Kelimeler

Internet Digital Platforms Google Apple E-Books

Kaynakça

  • Akademik Çalışmalar
  • ALEXANDROV, A., G. DELTAS ve D.F. SPULBER (2011), “Competition and Antitrust in Two-Sided Markets”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 7, s. 775-812.
  • ARMSTRONG, M. (2006), “Competition in Two-Sided Markets”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 37, s. 668-691.
  • BADUR, E. (2001), “Rekabet Hukukunda Fiyat Sınırlamaları”, Rekabet Dergisi, Sayı 7.
  • CAILLAUD, B. ve B. JULLIEN (2003),”Chicken and Egg: Competition Among Intermediation Service Providers”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 34, s. 309- 328.
  • CARLTON, D. ve J. PERLOFF (2005), Modern Industrial Organization, Fourth Edition, R.R.Donnelley & Sons Co., USA.
  • ÇETİNKAYA, M. (2003), İlgili Pazar Kavramı ve İlgili Pazar Tanımında Kullanılan Nicel Teknikler, 1. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • EBLEN, C.C. (2004), “Defining the Geographic Market in Modern Commerce: The Effect of Globalization and E-Commerce on Tampa Electric and Its Progeny”, 56 Baylor L. Rev. 49.
  • ELHAUGE, E: (2009), “Framing the Antitrust Issues in the Google Books Settlement”, Competition Policy International, GCP: The Antitrust Chronicle, Sayı 2
  • http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/pdf/Elhauge%20Framing%20 the%20Issues%20in%20the%20Google%20Books%20Settlement%20CPI%20 article.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • ELHAUGE, E: (2010), “Why the Google Books Settlement is Procompetitive”, Journal of Legal Analysis, Cilt 2, Sayı 1.
  • EVANS, D.S. (2003), “The Antitrust Economics of Multi-Sided Platform Markets”, Yale Journal on Regulation, Vol. 20, s. 325-381.
  • EVANS, D.S. (2008), “Antitrust Issues Raised by the Emerging Global Internet Economy”, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 285.
  • EVANS, D.S. (2012), “Two-Sided Markets”, Amerikan Barolar Birliği Rekabet Hukuku Bölümü (der.), Market Definition In Antitrust: Theory And Case Studies içinde, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1396751, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • FILISTRUCCHI, L., D. GERADIN ve A.P., VAN DAMME (2014), “Market Definition in Two-Sided Markets: Theory and Practice”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 10, No. 2, s. 293-340.
  • FRASER, E.M. (2010), “Antitrust and the Google Books Settlement: The Problem of Simultaneity”, Stan. Tech. L. Rev. Cilt 4.
  • FRISCHMANN, B. (2009), “Google Books and the Essential Facilities Doctrine”, Madisonian.net, http://madisonian.net/2009/02/15/google-books-and- the-essential-facilities-doctrine/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • GERADIN, D., C. AHLBORN, V. DENICOLÒ ve A.J. PADILLA (2006), “DG Comp’s Discussion Paper on Article 82: Implications of the Proposed Framework and Antitrust Rules for Dynamically Competitive Industries”, SSRN: http://ssrn. com/abstract=894466, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • GEROSKI, P.A. (2003), “Competition in Markets and Competition for Markets”, 3 J. Industry, Competıtıon & Trade 151.
  • GÜRKAYNAK, G. (2003), Türk Rekabet Hukuku Uygulaması İçin “Hukuk ve İktisat” Perspektifinden “Amaç” Tartışması, Türk Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • GÜRKAYNAK, G., D. DURLU ve M. HAGAN (2013), “Antitrust on the Internet: A Comparative Assessment of Competition Law Enforcement in the Internet Realm”, IBA Business Law International, Vol. 14, No. 1.
  • GRIMMELMAN, J. (2009), “How to Fix the Google Book Search Settlement”, Journal of Internet Law, Vol. 12, No. 10, http://james.grimmelmann.net/files/ articles/how-to-fix.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • GRIMMELMANN, J. (2011), “The Elephantine Google Books Settlement”, Copyright Society of the USA.
  • GÜNDÜZ, H. (2010), Çift Taraflı Pazarlarda Rekabet Hukuku Uygulamaları, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No.106, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • GÜNDÜZ, R. (2012), Tek Taraflı Davranışlarda Haklı Gerekçe: AB, ABD Hukuku Uygulamaları ve Türk Hukuku İçin Çıkarımlar, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No. 113, 8. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • GÜVEN, P. (2008), Rekabet Hukuku, Genişletilmiş 2. Baskı, Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • HAUSMAN, J.A. ve G. SIDAK (2009), “Google and the Proper Antitrust Scrutiny of Orphan Books”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(3), s. 411-438. KAGAN, J. (2011), “Bricks, Mortar and Google: Defining the Relevant Antitrust Market for Internet-Based Companies”, 55 NY L Sch L Rev 271.
  • KATZ, M. ve C. SHAPIRO (1994), “System Competition and Network Effects”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.8, No.2, http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/ pdfplus/10.1257/jep.8.2.93, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • KIRKWOOD, J.B. (2014), “Collusion to Control a Powerful Customer: Amazon, E-Books, and Antitrust Policy”, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 1, s. 1-63.
  • MOTTA, M. (2004), Competition Policy, Theory and Practice, First Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, US.
  • ONUKLU, N.N. (2007), Geçiş Maliyetlerinin Firma Davranışı ve Pazar Üzerindeki Etkileri – Ardılpazarda [sic] Pazar Gücü, 5. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • PATTERSON, M. (1997), “Coercion, Deception, and Other Demand Increasing Practices in Antitrust Law”, 66 Antitrust L.J. 1, s. 1-89.
  • PICKER, R. (2009), “Antitrust and Innovation: Framing Baselines in the Google Book Search Settlement”, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1499482, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • ROCHET, J-C. ve J. TIROLE (2003), “Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets”, Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol.1, s. 990-1029.
  • ROCHET, J-C. ve J. TIROLE (2006), “Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 37, s. 645-667.
  • SAMUELSON, P. (2013), “A Perspective on the Merits of the Antitrust Objections to the Failed Google Books Settlement”, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/antitrust/articles/Samuelson.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SCHUMPETER, J.A. (1976), Capitalism, Socialism & Democracy, Routledge.
  • SEYRANTEPE, İ. (2012), Birleşmelerin Kontrolünde Etkinlik Savunmasının Rolü: Yatay Birleşmeler Temelinde bir Değerlendirme, Rekabet Kurumu Uzmanlık Tezleri Serisi No. 116, 8. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • SHAPIRO, C. (1996), “Antitrust in Network Industries” (Konuşma Metni), Conference on Antitrust/Intellectual Property Claims in High Technology Markets, American Law Institute and American Bar Association, San Fransisco https://www.justice.gov/atr/file/518696/download, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SHELANSKI, H.A. (2013), “Information, Innovation and Competition Policy for the Internet”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 161, s. 1663-1705.
  • SIMONS, J.J. ve M.A. WILLIAMS (1993), “The renaissance of market definition”, The Antitrust Buletin, Winter 1993, C. 38, s. 799-857.
  • SLESINGER, R. E. (1995), “The Use of Economic Analysis by the Supreme Court in Applying the Concept of the Relevant Market”, European Journal of Law and Economics, No. 2, s. 227-245.
  • SU, K.T. (2003), Rekabet Hukukunda Teşebbüslerin Hakim Durumunun Belirlenmesinde Pazar Gücünün Ölçülmesi, 1. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • SURBLYTÉ, G. (ed) (2015), Competition on the Internet, MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law 23, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany.
  • TIROLE, J. (2005), “The Analysis of Tying Cases: A Primer”, Competition Policy International, Vol. 1, No. 1, s. 1-25.
  • VAN DER VEER, J.P. (2013), “Antitrust Scrutiny of Most-Favoured-Customer Clauses: An Economic Analysis”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Cilt 4, Sayı 6, s. 501-505.
  • WEBER, R.H. (2013), “Competition Law Issues in the Online World”, 20th St Gallen International Competition Law Forum ICF, http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2341978, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • WOLFE, M. (2014), “The Apple E-Books Agreement and Ruinous Competition: Are E-Goods Different for Antitrust Purposes?”, Duke Law & Technology Review, Cilt 1, Sayı 12, s. 129-150.
  • WU, T. (2012), “Taking Innovation Seriously: Antitrust Enforcement If Innovation Mattered Most”, 78 Antitrust Law Journal 313, s. 313-328.
  • YANIK, M. (2003), Rekabet Hukukunun Hakim Durum ve Hakim Durumun Kötüye Kullanılması Uygulamalarında Piyasa Giriş Engelleri, 1. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • YENİŞEN, D. (2003), Şebeke Dışsallıkları ve Rekabet, 2. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • YILMAZ, H. (2003), Yenilik, Yeni Ekonomi ve Rekabet, 2. Dönem Uzmanlık Tezi, Rekabet Kurumu Yayınları, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • YOO, C.S. ve D.F. SPULBER (2013), “Antitrust, the Internet, and the Economics of Networks”, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository, Faculty Scholarship Paper 568. Kararlar
  • America Online, Inc v GreatDeals.net, 49 F Supp 2d (ED Va 1999).
  • Avrupa Komisyonu, Case No. COMP/M. 6281 - Microsoft/Skype (07.10.2011).
  • Avrupa Komisyonu, Case No. COMP/M. 6381 - Google/Motorola Mobility (13.02.2012).
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2013), Summary of Commission Decision of 25 July 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.847/E- BOOKS) (notified under document C(2013) 4750) Text with EEA relevance, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1397133984033&uri=CEL EX:52013XC1224(04), Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı (1. Daire), Case No. C-52/09, Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB (17.02.2011).
  • Avrupa Toplulukları Adalet Divanı, Case No. 85/76, Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities (13.02.1979).
  • Brief Amici Curiae Of American Library Association, Association Of College And Research Libraries, And Association Of Research Libraries In Support Of Appellee And Affirmance, Authors Guild v. Google (13-4829-cv), US Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Temyiz Dilekçesi, http://www.arl.org/storage/ documents/publications/amicus-GoogleBooksAppeal-final-8jul2014.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Brown Shoe Co v US, 370 US 294, 325, 82 S Ct 1502, 8 L Ed 2d 510 (1962).
  • Europemballage and Continental Can v Commission, Case 6/72 [1973] ECR 215, [1973] CMLR 199.
  • Gerlinger v Amazon.com Inc, 311 F Supp 2d (ND Cal 2004).
  • In re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, 545 F Supp 2d (ND Cal 2008).
  • KinderStart.com, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. C 06-2057 JF (RS), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22637 (N.D. Cal. 16.03.2007).
  • LiveUniverse, Inc v Myspace, Inc, CV 06-6994AHMRZX, 2007 WL 6865852 (CD Cal 04.06.2007) aff’d, LiveUniverse, Inc v MySpace, Inc, 304 F App’x 554 (9th Cir 2008).
  • Person v. Google, Inc., No. C 06-07297 JF (RS), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22499, parag. *12 (N.D. Cal. 16.03.2007).
  • Re Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Case No.12-cv-02293, and Texas, et.al. v. Penguin Group, et.al., Case No. 12-cv-03394 (2013), Settlement Agreement By and Among Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Plaintiff States and Settlement Class
  • zMo%3d&tabid=79&mid=451, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Rekabet Kurulu’nun 02.11.2011 tarihli, 11-55/1453-BD sayılı toplantısında aldığı Google/Motorola kararı.
  • Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 125 (2d Cir. 2009).
  • The Authors Guild et.al. v. Google Inc., Case 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), United States District Court Southern District of New York, 14.11.2013, https://cases.justia. com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2005cv08136/273913/1088/0. pdf?ts=1384528543, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • The Authors Guild et. al. v. Google Inc., Case 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), 22.03.2011, Hâkim Denny Chin’in teklif edilen uzlaşmayı reddettiği görüşü, http://isites. harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic982909.files//GBS%20Chen%20Order.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • The Authors Guild et. al. v. Google Inc., Case 05 Civ. 8136 (DC), 02.11.2010, Brief of Google Inc. in Support of Motion for Final Approval of Amended Settlemyn Aagreement (2010), http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic716525.files/ Google%20GBS%20ASA%20Brief%20021110.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • The Authors Guild et.al. v. Google Inc. vd., US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket No. 13-4829-cv (16.10.2015), https://www.eff.org/ files/2015/10/16/agvgoogle.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • TÜRKYAYBİR (12-68/1682-618; 27.12.2012).
  • United States v. Aluminum Corp. of America, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945).
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan, The Penguin Group, A Division of Pearson PLC, Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Civil Action, Case No. 1:12- cv-02826 (SDNY 2012), Şikâyet, 11.04.2012, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ f282100/282135.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan, The Penguin Group, A Division of Pearson PLC, Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Civil Action, Case No. 1:12-cv- 02826 (SDNY 2012), Competitive Impact Statement, 08.02.2013, http://www. justice.gov/atr/cases/f292600/292623.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc., HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck GmbH, Holtzbrinck Publishers, LLC d/b/a Macmillan, The Penguin Group, A Division of Pearson PLC, Penguin Group (USA), Inc., and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Civil Action, Case No. 1:12-cv- 02826 (SDNY 2012), Competitive Impact Statement, 11.04.2012, s.1-9, http:// www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f282100/282143.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., et al. (2013), 12 Civ. 2826 (DLC), http://www.justice. gov/file/486691/download, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc. (2013), 952 F. Supp. 2d 638 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (No. 12- cv-2826), Şikâyet.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc., et al. (2013), Final Judgment as to Defendants the Penguin Group, A Division of Pearson PLC, and Penguin Group (USA), Inc. (Civil Action No. 1:12-CV2826 (DLC)), http://www.justice.gov/file/486816/ download, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. Apple, Inc. (2015), US Court of Appeals for the 2d Cir., http:// cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-3741/13-3741-2015-06-30. pdf?ts=1435674605, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 394–410 (1956).
  • ABD Adalet Bakanlığı, Federal Ticaret Komisyonu, Avrupa Komisyonu ve Rekabet Kurumu Metinleri
  • Rekabet Kurumu (2015), 24.07.2015 tarihli Booking.com B.V. ile Bookingdotcom Destek Hizmetleri Limited Şirketi Hakkında Soruşturma Açıldığına Dair Duyuru, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/tr-TR/Guncel/Bookingcom-BV-ile-Bookingdotcom- Destek-Hizmetleri-Limited-Sirketi-Hakkinda-Sorusturma-Acildi, Erişim Tarihi: ALMUNIA, J. (2012), “Statement of VP Almunia on the Google antitrust investigation”
  • pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/12/372, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016. ALMUNIA, J. (2013a), “Antitrust enforcement: Challenges old and new” (08.06.2012) (Speech/12/428), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. do?reference=SPEECH/12/428, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • ALMUNIA J. (2013b), “Competition in the online world” (11.11.2013), LSE Public Lecture, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-905_en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2009), “Guidance on the Commission’s enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings” (2009/C45/02), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009XC0224(01)&from=EN, Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2010), “Antitrust: Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google”, Basın Duyurusu (20.11.2010), http://europa.eu/ rapid/press-release_IP-10-1624_en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2011), “Antitrust: Commission confirms unannounced inspections in the e-book publishing sector”, MEMO/11/126, http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-11-126_en.htm?locale=en
  • Erişim Avrupa Komisyonu (2011b), Opening of Proceedings, 39847 Ebooks, http:// ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39847/39847_4028_3.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2012), “Mergers: Commission approves acquisition of Motorola Mobility by Google”, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-129_ en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2013a), “Antitrust: Commission seeks feedback on commitments offered by Google to address competition concerns”, http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-371_en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2013b), “Market Test Notice”, 2013/C 120/09, http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013XC0426(02)&fr om=EN, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2013c), Basın Duyurusu, “Antitrust: Commission accepts legally binding commitments from Penguin in e-books market”, http://europa.eu/ rapid/press-release_IP-13-746_en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2014), “Antitrust: Commission obtains from Google comparable display of specialised search rivals- Frequently asked questions”, Bilgi Notu
  • http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-87_en.htm?locale=en, Avrupa Komisyonu (2015), “Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on comparison shopping service; opens separate formal investigation on Android”, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4780_ en.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Parlamentosu (2014), “Commitments made at the hearing of Margrethe Vestager, Commissioner for Competition”, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ RegData/etudes/BRIE/2014/536309/IPOL_BRI(2014)536309_EN.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016, s. 3 (“On-going cases” başlığı).
  • Commitments in Case COMP/C-3/39.740 - Foundem and others (2013), http:// ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39740/39740_8608_5.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Competitive Impact Statement (2012), http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ f282100/282143.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Department of Justice (2012), Justice Department Reaches Settlement with Penguin Group (USA) Inc. in E-Books Case, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ justice-department-reaches-settlement-penguin-group-usa-inc-e-books-case, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Europa (2011a), Antitrust Commission Confirms Unannounced Inspections in the e-Book Publishing Sector, (02.03.2011), http://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/126, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Europa (2011b), Antitrust Commission Opens Formal Proceedings to Investigate Sales of e-Books, (06.12.2011), http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do? reference=IP/11/1509&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN, Erişim Tarihi: Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2007a), “Federal Ticaret Komisyonu’nun Google/ DoubleClick İşlemine İlişkin Bildirisi” (FTC File No 071-0170) (20.12.2007), www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0710170/071220statement.pdf, 19.03.2016.
  • Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2007b), “Federal Trade Commission Closes Google/DoubleClick Investigation” (20.12.2007) (Press Release), www.ftc.gov/ opa/2007/12/googledc.shtm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2010), “Statement of the Commission Concerning Google/AdMob” (FTC File No 101-0031) (21.05.2010), www.ftc.gov/os/ closings/100521google-admobstmt.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2013a), Federal Ticaret Komisyonu’nun Açıklaması, In the Matter of Google Inc., FTC File No. 111-0163, 03.01.2013, https://www. ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/295971/130103googlesearchs tmtofcomm.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2016.
  • Federal Ticaret Komisyonu (2013b), “Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search”, Basın Duyurusu, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/01/google-agrees-change- its-business-practices-resolve-ftc, Erişim Tarihi: 21.03.2016.
  • Global Competition Review (2013), Google Sends EU Commitment Offer (01.02.2013)
  • google-sends-eu-commitment-offer/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Google, Organic Search Result¸ https://support.google.com/adwords/ answer/6054492?hl=en, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Google’dan David Drummond’un Federal Ticaret Komisyonu Başkanı Leibowitz’e Gönderdiği Mektup, 27.12.2012, http://static.googleusercontent. com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/pdf/google_ftc_ dec2012.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • OECD (2009), “Roundtable on Two-Sided Markets”, Note by the Delegation of the European Commission, DAF/COMP/WD(2009)69, http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/international/multilateral/2009_jun_twosided.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • OECD (2012), Roundtable on Market Definition, Note by the Delegation of the European Union, DAF/COMP/WD(2012)28, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ international/multilateral/2012_jun_market_definition_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: Rekabet Kurumu (2014), Rekabet Terimleri Sözlüğü, “Şebeke Etkisi”, http:// www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%2FGenel+%C4% B0%C3%A7erik%2Fsozluk%2FRekabet+Terimleri+S%C3%B6zl%C3%BC% C4%9F%C3%BC+5.Bask%C4%B1.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • US DOJ (2009), Statement of the United States of America Regarding Proposed Class Settlement, US DOJ, s. 1-2, 16-25, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ f250100/250180.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • US DOJ (2010a), Justice Department Submits Views on Proposed Google Book Search Settlement, Basın Duyurusu, US DOJ, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/ press_releases/2010/255014.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • US DOJ (2010b), Statement of the United States of America Regarding Proposed Amended Settlement Agreement, US DOJ, s. 1-3, 16-23 (Bölüm II), http://www. justice.gov/atr/cases/f255000/255012.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • US DOJ (2011), “Justice Department Requires Google Inc. to Develop and License Travel Software in Order to Proceed with Its Acquisition of ITA Software Inc” (08.04.2011), www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/April/11-at-445.html/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016. Mevzuat
  • /4 Sayılı Rekabet Kurulundan İzin Alınması Gereken Birleşme ve Devralmalar Hakkında Tebliğ, http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2 f1%2fDocuments%2fTebli%C4%9F%2f2010-4.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016. 4054 sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun, R.G. Tarih: 13.12.1994, R.G. Sayı: 22140.
  • Sayılı Rekabetin Korunması Hakkında Kanun Madde Gerekçesi
  • http://www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2f1%2fDocuments%2fGenel+% C4%B0%C3%A7erik%2fmaddegerekceleri. pdf,Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (1997), İlgili Pazarın Tanımına İlişkin Duyuru¸ OJ No. 372, 09.12.1997.
  • Rekabet Kurumu (2008), İlgili Pazarın Tanımlanmasına İlişkin Kılavuz; http:// www.rekabet.gov.tr/File/?path=ROOT%2F1%2FDocuments%2FKilavuz%2Fki lavuz5.pdf; Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • OECD Policy Roundtables (2007), “Dynamic Efficiencies in Merger Analysis”, DAF/COMP(2007)41, http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/mergers/40623561. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Sherman Act, 15 USC.
  • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 30.03.2010, OJEU C 83/47- 199. Özgün Eserler
  • BOSMAN, J. (2012), “Judge Approves E-Book Pricing Settlement Between Government and Publishers”, New York Times Media Decoder, http:// mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/judge-approves-e-book-pricing- settlement-between-government-and-publishers/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • CATAN, T. (2011), “Justice Department Confirms E-Book Pricing Probe”, Wall Street Journal Online (18.12.2011), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405 2970203501304577084331269336926.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • ComScore Basın Açıklaması (2012), “ComScore Reports October 2012 U.S. Mobile Subscriber Market Share”, http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_ Releases/2012/11/comScore_Reports_October_2012_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_ Market_Share, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • COURANT, P. (2009), “Google, Robert Darnton, and the Digital Republic of Letters”, Au Courant blog, http://paulcourant.net/2009/02/04/google-robert- darnton-and-the-digital-republic-of-letters/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • DailyTech (2013), “RIP AltaVista: 1995-2003”, http://www.dailytech.com/ RIP+AltaVista+19952013/article31880.htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • DARNTON, R. (2009), “Google & the Future of Books”, New York Review of Books, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/feb/12/google-the- future-of-books/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • DIW ECON (2009), “Competition In the Web Search Market: A Report for
  • Suchmaschinen_DIWecon_v2.0.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • DOLMANS, M ve A. LEYDEN (2012), “Internet & Antitrust: An overview of EU and national case law”, e-Competitions Bulletin Art. No. 45647.
  • Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (2012), “Consumer Market Study on the Functioning of the Market for Internet Access and Provision from A Consumer Perspective, Final Report”, s.388, http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ archive/consumer_research/market_studies/docs/internet-service-study-full_ en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Facebook (2015), “Introducing New Features in Facebook Groups to Improve the Way People Buy and Sell”, Facebook Newsroom, http://newsroom.fb.com/ news/2015/02/introducing-new-features-in-facebook-groups-to-improve-the- way-people-buy-and-sell/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • FairSearch (2013), “FairSearch Announces Complaint in EU on Google’s Anti-Competitive Mobile Strategy”, http://fairsearch.org/fairsearch-announces- complaint-in-eu-on-googles-anti-competitive-mobile-strategy/, Erişim Tarihi: FARREL, M.B. (2012), “Lycos Founder Seeks New Breed of Web Pioneers”, The Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2012/04/07/lycos- founder-seeks-new-breed-web-pioneers/0ZnsxuYeMv9wmHOL7KRdpJ/story. html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Fortune (2015a), “Google just boosted the odds that it will acquire Twitter”, http://fortune.com/2015/08/04/google-buy-twitter/; Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Fortune (2015b), “Would feds block a Google-Twitter merger? Probably not”, http://fortune.com/2015/08/06/would-feds-block-a-google-twitter-merger- probably-not/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • GILLETTE, F. (2011), “The Rise and Inglorious Fall of Myspace”, Businessweek. com, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_27/b4235053917570. htm, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • HAUCAP, J. ve T. STÜHMEIER (2015), “Competition and Antitrust in Internet Markets”, Discussion Paper No.199, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics
  • Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche_Fakultaet/DICE/Discussion_Paper/199_Haucap_ Stuehmeier.pdf , Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP) (2013), “Google Under the Antitrust Microscope”, http://www.i-comp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/07/1213_Google_antitrust_lores_screen.pdf
  • ITALIANER, A. (2012), “Innovation and competition”, Fordham Competition Law Institute Conference, 21.09.2012, New York, http://ec.europa.eu/ competition/speeches/text/sp2012_05_en.pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • KANTER, J. (2011), “Brussels Wants 7-Year Limit on Works Digitized by Google”, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/business/ global/11google.html?ref=googlebooksearch, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • KARR, J-B. A. (1866), Les Guêpe, Third Edition, Michel Lévy Frères, Paris, France.
  • KEIZER, G. (2011), “Antitrust Fight Against App Store Will Be Tough”, PCWorld.. 17.02.2011, http://www.pcworld.com/article/219861/antitrust_fight_ against_app_store_will_be_tough.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • KOPPEL, N. (2011), “Apple’s Subscription Rules Raise Possible Antitrust Issues.” Wall Street Journal, 16.02.2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014 24052748704409004576146613997208194.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • LOWENSOH, J. (2010), “Report: EU joining FTC Apple probe”, Cnet, 10.08.2010
  • ErişimTarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • LUNDEN, I. (2012), “With DoJ Suit Still In Play, Apple And Four Big Publishers Settle Price Fixing Probe In Europe”, TechCrunch, 13.12.2012, http://techcrunch. com/2012/12/13/with-doj-suit-still-in-play-apple-and-four-big-publishers-settle- price-fixing-probe-in-europe/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • MANARA, C. (2010), “The Italian Competition Authority examines commitments regarding the functioning of Google News (FIEG v. Google)”, e-Competitions Bulletin Art. No. 32135.
  • MANNE, G. (2012), “The procompetitive story that could undermine the DOJ’s e-books antitrust case against Apple”, Technology Liberation Front blog, 12.04.2012, http://techliberation.com/2012/04/12/the-procompetitive-story-that- could-undermine-the-dojs-e-books-antitrust-case-against-apple/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Merriam-Webster, Definition of Internet, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/Internet, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • MEYER, L (2000), “Digital Platforms: Definition and Strategic Value”, Comm. & Strategies, http://www.digiworld.org/fic/revue_telech/540/C&S38_MEYER. pdf, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • MILLER, C.C. ve N. WINGFIELD (2013), “Google Pushed Hard Behind the Scenes to Convince Regulators”, New York Times, 03.01.2013, http://www. nytimes.com/2013/01/04/technology/googles-lawyers-work-behind-the-scenes- to-carry-the-day.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • New York Times (2015), “Case Against Google May Be Undercut by Rapid Changes in Technology”, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/technology/ case-against-google-may-be-undercut-by-rapid-shifts-in-tech.html?_r=1, Erişim O’REILLY, T. (2009), “Competition in the eBook Market”, O’Reilly Radar blog, http://toc.oreilly.com/2009/01/competition-in-the-ebook-marke.html, Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • PEARLMAN, J. (2008), “Google Book Search and Orphan Works”, PublicKnowledge blog, http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/1843, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • Erişim PETIT, N. (2011), “The European Commission is called on to assess whether a company in the online search market has abused of its dominant position under Art. 102 TFEU (Microsoft, Google)”, e-Competitions Bulletin Art. No. 36317.
  • Prezi (2014), “The Rise and Fall of MySpace”, https://prezi.com/jjlt7pbzknpp/ the-rise-and-fall-of-myspace/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • RATLIFF, J. D. ve D. L. RUBINFELD (2011), “Is There a Market for Organic Search Engine Results and Can Their Manipulation Give Rise to Antitrust Liability?”, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2473210, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • RUSHE, D. (2012) “Yahoo: The Rise and Fall of an Internet Pioneer”, Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/jan/20/yahoo-rise-fall-internet- pioneer, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SAUMON, C. (2010) “The French NCA accepts commitments relating to online advertising service (Google AdWords)”, e-Competitions Bulletin Art. No. 33290. SightCall (2014), “SightCall Unveils New Amazon Mayday Like Features for Salesforce at Dreamforce 2014”, SightCall, http://www.sightcall.com/sightcall- unveils-new-amazon-mayday-like-features-salesforce-dreamforce-2014/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SINGAL, J. (2012), “Saying Goodbye to AOL Instant Messenger”, The Daily Beast
  • aol-instant-messenger.html, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • SCOTT-MORTON, F. (2012), “Antitrust Enforcement in High-Technology Industries: Protecting Innovation and Competition”, Remarks as Prepared for the 2012 NYSBA Annual Antitrust Forum Antitrust in High-Tech Markets – Intervention or Restraint, New York, http://www.justice.gov/atr/file/518956/ download, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • STERLING, G. (2012), “Seeking To Pressure Regulators, FairSearch Announces New Members, Issues Missive Seeking “Meaningful” Remedies”, Searchengineland.com
  • regulators-fairsearch-announces-new-members-issues-missive-133713, Erişim http://searchengineland.com/seeking-to-pressure- SULLIVAN, D. (2013), “EU Antitrust Chief: Google “Diverting Traffic” & Will Be Forced To Change”, SearchEngineLand blog, Searchengineland.com, http:// searchengineland.com/eu-antitrust-chief-google-diverting-traffic-will-be-forced- to-change-144824, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • The Digital Reader (2015), “Apple Asks US Supreme Court to Overturn eBook Antitrust Decision”, http://the-digital-reader.com/2015/10/29/apple-asks-us- supreme-court-to-overturn-ebook-antitrust-ruling/, Erişim Tarihi: 29.02.2006.
  • The Digital Reader (2016), “US Appeals Court Upholds Apple eBook Settlement”, http://the-digital-reader.com/2016/02/17/us-appeals-court-upholds-apple-ebook- settlement/, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • WhoIsHostingThis (2014), “The Rise and Fall of Instant Messengers”, http:// www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2014/10/22/instant-messengers/; Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
  • YUYU, C. (2015), “Google to Improve Doorways Algorithm for Better Search Results”, Search Engine Watch, http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/ news/2399920/google-to-improve-doorways-algorithm-for-better-search-results, Erişim Tarihi: 19.03.2016.
Toplam 174 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Research Article
Yazarlar

Gönenç Gürkaynak Bu kişi benim

Derya Durlu Gürzumar Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Haziran 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2015 Sayı: 62

Kaynak Göster

APA Gürkaynak, G., & Durlu Gürzumar, D. (2015). İNTERNETİN EZBER BOZAN ORTAMINDA VE YENİLİKÇİ DİJİTAL PAZARLARDA REKABET HUKUKU EĞİLİMLERİ. Rekabet Dergisi(62), 43-109.