https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Talk%3AFinland_1998 2026-04-22T19:45:04Z Revision history for this page on the wiki MediaWiki 1.43.6 https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Talk:Finland_1998&diff=337&oldid=prev 2007-06-26T16:27:00Z

<p>New page: == Finland 1998 - RTP Efficiency == &#039;&#039;Does 6(1)(2) has efficiency/public policy defense built-in?&#039;&#039; 6(1)(2) - [A firm cannot do the following by agreement with other firms] ... limit pr...</p> <p><b>New page</b></p><div><br /> == Finland 1998 - RTP Efficiency ==<br /> <br /> &#039;&#039;Does 6(1)(2) has efficiency/public policy defense built-in?&#039;&#039;<br /> <br /> 6(1)(2) - [A firm cannot do the following by agreement with other firms] ... limit production or divide the market or sources of supply unless this is essential for an arrangement which will boost production or distribution or promote technical or economic development and as a result of which the benefit will primarily accrue to customers or consumers.<br /> <br /> --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 14:35, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I definitely see an efficiency defense but I&#039;d ask Hylton about public policy. I thought we were looking for a smoking barrel in regards to public policy defense. On a side note, I also see market division and output restraint in there. Also, is &quot;supply refusal&quot; inherent in &quot;dividing the market of supply&quot;? <br /> --[[User:Kajrozga|Kajrozga]] 16:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hylton: This is efficency. --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 10:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Finland 1998 - Remedies (Divestiture) ==<br /> <br /> &#039;&#039;Can the Competition Authority divest as a remedy?&#039;&#039;<br /> <br /> From commentary on Finnish competition law (pp. 379-80 of &#039;&#039;Competition Law in the EU&#039;&#039;): [Competition authority] can order a concentration to be canceled or impose conditions thereon, if the concentration has been implemented against the provisions of the Competition Act. ...<br /> <br /> --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 14:42, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> &quot;impose conditions&quot; is very vague. That could mean changing a minor condition in the merger agreement. I&#039;d ask hylton whether we can stretch the meaning of that to mean divestiture. <br /> --[[User:Kajrozga|Kajrozga]] 16:24, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hylton: This is divestiture. --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 10:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)</div>

JWSchneider