Skip to content

About us

eCounsel group

A boutique firm with unparalleled expertise in business and technology. We have good command of industrial ecology and legal practice, and have undertaken highly regarded cases. Because the small business scope, we pay more emphasis on effectiveness and efficiency, and choose clients with deliberation. The managing partner not only has extensive experiences in various legal issues more over than 20 years, but invests and manages several technology companies. In addition, he always checks each case rigorously. Clients’ business objectives are our primary focus. To achieve the same in the most cost-effective fashion trumps all seemingly sophisticated legal discussions.

Apple Music – Hitting the Wall Before Hitting the Shelves

2015 - 06 - 12

Apple Music under antitrust scrutiny  

「The attorneys general of New York and Connecticut are now investigatingwhether the deals struck by Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) for its new music service violated antitrust rules.

The joint investigation will probe whether Apple pressured music labels – or whether the labels conspired with Apple and one another – to withdraw support for popular “freemium” services like Spotify in favor of its new paid streaming music service.

Eric Schneiderman and Connecticut’s George Jepsen were also among a group of attorneys generals who in 2013 sued Apple for conspiring to raise the prices of e-books. Apple agreed to pay $450M as part of that settlement.」

http://seekingalpha.com/news/2571016-apple-music-under-antitrust-scrutiny

在我的〔Apple Music 來勢猛暴〕裡就提到這個產品可能會有違反公平交易相關法令的問題,然後就看到這則新聞了。

紐約州和康乃迪克州的檢察總長聯手,對Apple啟動反壟斷的調查,要瞭解Apple有無壓迫唱片公司(或唱片公司有無與Apple共謀)撤回對於如Spotify之業者的廣告支持的免費音樂(freemium)模式,以利自家的付費音樂串流服務的發展。這兩位檢察總長也在2013年時對Apple在e-book抬價案起訴,該案中Apple賠了4.5億美元的和解金。

姑不論iPod的精神意義,Apple這局玩很大(在100個國家要同時開台)、錢砸很多(光買Beats就花了美金30億,而我從Spotify付給Sony的數字來預測,光為美國加拿大的兩地授權,Apple每年的預付權利金恐怕也得接近美金1億),會不會隨便做一做看看沒啥起色就收攤?如果不會,那它可能祭出的手段難道只有把freemium給殺了嗎?

再加上,Apple裡主導這個產品的都是重量級的資深音樂人,他們與唱片界的淵源,遠比大多數的串流業者要深。聚在一塊兒,不多搞些小陰謀,你信?

Recommended article 

Forget the 1992 Consensus, One-China Policy Does No Harm

There was no 1992 consensus. Even if there had been one, it would have been an under-the-table consensus between KMT and Chinese Communist Party ,which has nothing to do with the citizens in Taiwan. This has…

Taiwan's National Health Insurance Is Not That Bad

There are indeed problems with our health insurance, problems that affects healthcare quality and equality among all classes in our society. 無助的美國健康保險系統 「……美國健康保險制度五花八門,基本上都是民營的,政府辦理的只有窮人保險(Medicaid),政府辦理的保險很多醫生不參加,因為給付額度很低,而民間的健康保險制度非常複雜,同一家公司有HMO(管理式)、PPO(直接或自由式)等不同計畫……隨著經濟不景氣,越來越多人沒有健康保險,就會造成一個很大的醫療風暴,很多醫院關門,影響急難救助……。」 http://ppt.cc/2ZB5 健保的問題大,我瞭解。但是,大到影響我們社會裡各階級之就醫與保健權益、醫藥界等產業鏈的財富分配與人才養成,只靠著訴諸情緒而不探究問題本源的謾罵,只讓人覺得可惜。甚至有些人對於學名藥的講法,像極了為原廠藥在煽動民眾對政府施壓,對於體系性地解決問題毫無助益,可嘆。 這篇用生活化的口語說明美國的醫療保險制度,值得朋友們參考。 文章裡缺的,是處方藥有關的問題(總之,在美國拿到處方箋後,病人到藥局買藥時需自付的co-payment多半很高)。 凡讀過相關議題報導的都知道,美國的醫療(暨相關私人保險)制度與各種收費模式,即便對中產階級而言,都算得上是一大負擔,失業期間就更別提了,就醫的基本人權,僅不過是窮人的口號。此外,更有數千萬美國人,長年因為工作關係(例如:臨時性打工、或其雇主因財務考量而未提供等之情形。),根本連醫療保險都沒有,一旦生病,除非口袋有錢或四處告貸,否則只能勉強忍病不就醫。 反觀這些情況若發生在台灣呢? 制度要改善,沒有人會反對。請先衡平審視自己,才不會淪為痴人妄語。

Patent Battles vs. Doing Business

Even in Europe and U.S, most patent wars ends up with a truce. There are two reasons, it’s only part of the overall business strategy and it’s usually too costly. 即便在歐美,絕大多數的專利訴訟,都是和解收場。主要原因有二: (1) 它不過是商戰整體策略之一,邊打仗做做樣子邊談生意,達到目標就該喊撤了; (2) 打專利訴訟連大公司都嫌貴,如果在美國,一個案子discovery程序還沒走完(更別提進入審判了)經常狂燒百萬美元。 Google…