User talk:AchalOza: Difference between revisions

From AntitrustWorldWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
AchalOza (talk | contribs)
861 edits
No edit summary
AchalOza (talk | contribs)
861 edits
Egypt 2005 - Defenses
 
(63 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Malta 2003 - Merger Efficiency Defense ==
== Algeria 2003 Obstacles to Entry ==


''This looks like a merger efficiency defense.''
''Below is Algeria's definition of dominance (using Google Translator).  Does this sound like obstacles to entry language?  Perhaps we should have a translator look at it.''


Article 4(4) - "Concentrations that bring about or are likely to bring about
Article 3(c) - Dominant Position: the position allowing a company to hold, on the market in question, a position of economic power which '''gives him the capacity to make obstacle with the maintenance of an effective competition''', by providing him the possibility of independent behaviors in an appreciable measurement with respect to its competitors, of its customers or its suppliers;
gains in efficiency that will be greater than and will offset the  
effects of any prevention or lessening of competition resulting from
or likely to result from the concentration shall not be prohibited if
the undertakings concerned prove that such efficiency gains cannot
otherwise be attained, are verifiable and likely to be passed on to
consumers in the form of lower prices, or greater innovation,  
choice or quality of products or services."


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 16:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)


== Algeria 2000 Tying ==


Classic merger efficiency defense! --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 16:23, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
''One of the criteria for establishing a dominant position includes being able to create advantageous contractual bonds.  Would this just be another abusive act prohibition, or tying under RTP?  Or should this be nothing since it's just establishing what is a dominant position and doesn't say it's an abusive act?  The text below was translated with Google.''


== Malawi 1998 RTP Efficiency Defense ==
Article 2 - The criteria of determination of the dominant position of an economic agent on a market or a market segment of goods or services are in particular: financial, contractual bonds or in fact which bind the economic agent to one or more economic agents and which get advantages of any nature to him;


''Efficiency defense?  Public interest defense?''
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:08, 11 September 2007 (EDT)


Article 44(1) - "The Commission may authorize any act, agreement or understanding
== Egypt 2005 - Collusive Tendering ==
which is not prohibited outright by this Act, that is, one which is not necessarily
illegal unless abused if that act, agreement or understanding is consistent with the
objectives of this Act and the Commission considers that, on balance, the advantage
to Malawi outweigh the disadvantages"


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:01, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
Article 6(c) - "Coordinating with regard to proceeding or refraining from participating in tenders, auctions, negotiations and other calls for procurement."


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


I'd say this counts as an efficiency defense. --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 16:24, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
== Egypt 2005 - Defenses ==


== Mauritius 2003 Predatory Pricing ==
'''Article 9'''


''Predatory pricing prohibition?''
The provisions of this Law shall not apply to public utilities managed by the State.


Article 11(2)(a) - "[It is prohibited to directly or indirectly imposes unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions such as '''below-cost pricing''';"
The Authority may, upon the request of the concerned parties, exempt some or all the acts provided for in articles 6 [on Restrictive Trade Practices], 7 [on Restrictive Trade Practices] and 8 [on Dominance] regarding public utilities that are managed by companies subject to the Private Law where this is in the public interest or for attaining benefits to the consumers that exceed the effects of restricting the freedom of competition. This shall be done in accordance with the regulations and procedures set out by the Executive Regulation of this Law.


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:48, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 
Hylton: this is a prohibition on unfair pricing and on predatory pricing.  For predatory pricing, it is sufficient for a statute to prohibit a dominant firm from below-cost pricing. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 11:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
 
== Mauritius 2003 Output Restraint ==
 
''Is a prohibition against limited production the same thing as output restraint?''
 
Article 11(2)(b) - "[It is prohibited to] limit[] supply, '''production''', markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;"
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:50, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
 
Hylton: this is for a dominant position, so this would only be limits access.  If this was a restrictive trade practice, then it would be coded as output restraint.
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 10:26, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
 
== Mauritius 2003 RTP Efficiency Defense ==
 
''Efficiency defense?''
 
Article 16(b)
 
"(b) '''whether the effects of any absence, prevention, restriction or distortion of competition are outweighed by any specific benefits in respect of''' –
 
(i) the safety of goods and services;
 
(ii) '''the efficiency with which goods are produced, supplied or distributed or services are supplied or made available'''; or
 
(iii) the development and use of new and improved goods and services and means of production and distribution . . ."
 
== Mongolia 1994 Merger Assessment - Dominance ==
 
''This is the only text in the statute that is close to merger assessment.  Do you think this would code as Merger Assessment Dominance?''
 
Article 7(1) - "A dominant economic entity is prohibited to buy capital stock or shares of the
competitors, to take over their rights and duties, or to crate [''sic''] jointly a new entity by
joining the competitors' stock with purpose to carry out its monopolistic activities in
the market."
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 11:01, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
 
== Russia 2002 Prison Sentences ==
 
The statute provides for imprisonment.  However, according to a secondary source, criminal sanctions have never actually been applied.  Should it still be coded as a one?
 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/3/33872966.pdf, page 2.
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 16:36, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 04:58, 8 October 2007

Algeria 2003 Obstacles to Entry

Below is Algeria's definition of dominance (using Google Translator). Does this sound like obstacles to entry language? Perhaps we should have a translator look at it.

Article 3(c) - Dominant Position: the position allowing a company to hold, on the market in question, a position of economic power which gives him the capacity to make obstacle with the maintenance of an effective competition, by providing him the possibility of independent behaviors in an appreciable measurement with respect to its competitors, of its customers or its suppliers;

--AchalOza 08:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Algeria 2000 Tying

One of the criteria for establishing a dominant position includes being able to create advantageous contractual bonds. Would this just be another abusive act prohibition, or tying under RTP? Or should this be nothing since it's just establishing what is a dominant position and doesn't say it's an abusive act? The text below was translated with Google.

Article 2 - The criteria of determination of the dominant position of an economic agent on a market or a market segment of goods or services are in particular: financial, contractual bonds or in fact which bind the economic agent to one or more economic agents and which get advantages of any nature to him;

--AchalOza 08:08, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Egypt 2005 - Collusive Tendering

Article 6(c) - "Coordinating with regard to proceeding or refraining from participating in tenders, auctions, negotiations and other calls for procurement."

--AchalOza 00:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Egypt 2005 - Defenses

Article 9

The provisions of this Law shall not apply to public utilities managed by the State.

The Authority may, upon the request of the concerned parties, exempt some or all the acts provided for in articles 6 [on Restrictive Trade Practices], 7 [on Restrictive Trade Practices] and 8 [on Dominance] regarding public utilities that are managed by companies subject to the Private Law where this is in the public interest or for attaining benefits to the consumers that exceed the effects of restricting the freedom of competition. This shall be done in accordance with the regulations and procedures set out by the Executive Regulation of this Law.

--AchalOza 00:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=User_talk:AchalOza&oldid=1780"