#Insurmountable passive tv

In Generics, the regulatory context (and in particular the intellectual property system) featured prominently. It has long been clear that the qualification of an agreement as a вЂby objectвЂ™ infringement requires an analysis of the economic and legal context of which it is a part. Of these developments, Generics is probably the most significant one (see here for my case note, recently published in the Common Market Law Review). This is a valuable clarification, as the preliminary assessment in a commitment decision (or a Court ruling reviewing it) can be (and is) mistaken for a statement of the law.ДЄre the geo-blocking clauses restrictive by object?Д®ven though we do not have a definitive answer to whether the geo-blocking clauses are restrictive by object, it looks like that the most recent developments in the case law provide the necessary framework to evaluate the question. The press release issued by the institution expressly вЂ emphasises the preliminary nature of the assessment of the anticompetitive nature of the conduct at issue in the context of a decision adopted under Article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003вЂ. In fact, the Court is careful to clarify that there is no вЂdefinitiveвЂ™ conclusion as to whether there is an infringement. The CourtвЂ™s analysis in Canal+ was thus confined to whether the General Court had erred in law when it concluded that the clauses limiting the cross-border transmission of content justified the concerns raised by the Commission in the context of its preliminary assessment (paras 51-54). By the same token, the CommissionвЂ™s analysis in this context is limited to identifying concerns justifying an investigation. One should bear in mind that a commitment decision adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 does not rule on whether Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU have been infringed. In yesterdayвЂ™s judgment, the Court did not rule on whether such contractual obligations are restrictive by object.

I will focus my comments on these (leaving satellite aside).

These have been widely referred to as the вЂgeo-blocking clausesвЂ™. Of these, the clauses prohibiting Sky from making available, via the Internet, licensed content to customers outside the UK were by far the most interesting from a theoretical and a practical standpoint.

#Insurmountable passive tv

As I explained when commenting on AG PitruzzellaвЂ™s Opinion (see here), the challenge against the Paramount decision focused on contractual clauses limiting SkyвЂ™s ability, as a TV provider, to offer copyright-protected content across borders. The substantive question underpinning the original Pay-TV case was equally important (and, to a certain extent, also novel). The Canal+ judgment raised important issues relating to the interpretation of Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003.