| Thank you, that actually backs up what I've been saying: > competition: the applicants wish to ensure that the potential for competition and innovation in the emerging market for mobile payments is maintained. Therefore, they wish to collectively negotiate in response to any technological or other
exclusivity that a Third Party Wallet Provider may seek to impose by: > - refusing, restricting or failing to provide software access to any payment
functionality built into devices manufactured by or for, or operating systems
developed or distributed by, the Third Party Wallet Provider, for example
NFC functionality; and/or > - otherwise preventing or impeding card issuers from developing, deploying or
participating in any other mobile payment or mobile wallet services or Third
Party Wallets on any mobile devices or platforms; They're mainly concerned with fraud standards and making sure nobody (Apple) tries to limit access to their platform. As for your boycotting and "strong arm" claims, this document shows that scope is significantly narrower than you're implying: > Accordingly, the applicants seek authorisation to: [...] > enter into a limited form of collective boycott where the applicants will agree not to negotiate with the relevant Third Party Wallet Provider on an individual basis while collective negotiations with that Third Party Wallet Provider are ongoing. The "boycott" in this document is referring solely to individual negotiation. i.e. Bank1 can't go behind the other banks' back and sweeten the deal while they're negotiating as a group. |