|
|
| (13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Thailand 1999 Divestitures == | | == Algeria 2003 Obstacles to Entry == |
|
| |
|
| ''Is this divestiture language?'' | | ''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.'' |
|
| |
|
| Section 8 - "The Commission shall have the powers and duties as . . . (2) to issue Notifications prescribing market share and sales volume off any business by reference to which a business operator is deemed to have market domination[.]"
| | 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; |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 15:01, 18 July 2007 (MDT) | | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Hylton: not divestiture. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 14:02, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| | == Algeria 2000 Tying == |
|
| |
|
| == Thailand 1999 3rd Party Remedies ==
| | ''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.'' |
|
| |
|
| ''The "claiming compensation" language seems to imply that the 3rd party may initiate an action '''to get money'''.''
| | 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; |
|
| |
|
| Section 40 - "The person suffering an injury in consequence of the violation of section 25, section 26, section 27, section 28 or section 29 may initiate an action for '''claiming compensation from the violator'''."
| | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:08, 11 September 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 15:09, 18 July 2007 (MDT) | | == Egypt 2005 - Collusive Tendering == |
|
| |
|
| == Thailand 1999 Dominance Obstacles to Entry ==
| | Article 6(c) - "Coordinating with regard to proceeding or refraining from participating in tenders, auctions, negotiations and other calls for procurement." |
|
| |
|
| ''Would this count as a prohibition against setting obstacles to entry?''
| | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Section 25(4) - "[A dominant firm may not act by] intervening in the operation of business of other persons without justifiable reasons."
| | == Egypt 2005 - Defenses == |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:33, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
| | '''Article 9''' |
|
| |
|
| == Venezuela 1992 3rd Party Initiation ==
| | The provisions of this Law shall not apply to public utilities managed by the State. |
|
| |
|
| ''The first part of Art. 32 seems to allow 3rd party initiation, however the second part seems to not allow it. What do you think? Perhaps the 3rd party can only "report" a violation?''
| | 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. |
|
| |
|
| Article 32
| | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT) |
| | |
| "'''Proceedings shall be initiated at the request of a concerned party''' or at the initiative of the Office.
| |
| | |
| "The '''initiation of proceedings may be ordered only by the Superintendent.'''
| |
| | |
| "Whenever it appears that the rules provided for in this Law may have been violated, the Superintendent will order the opening qf the corresponding proceeding, and shall initiate through the Tribunal the investigation of the case when appropriate."
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:00, 19 July 2007 (EDT) | |
| | |
| Hylton: yes, code this as 3rd party initiation. It is close enough, it basically allows a 3rd party to initiate and the Superintendent oversees the process to make sure it's valid. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 10:21, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Venezuela 1992 Divestiture ==
| |
| | |
| ''Does this imply divestiture?''
| |
| | |
| Article 35: During the hearing of the case file, and before its decision is handed down, the office Superintendent may adopt the following preventive measures:
| |
| | |
| 1º It '''may order the alleged prohibited practice to cease'''; and
| |
| | |
| 2º '''Dictate measures to avoid damages that may result from the alleged prohibited practice'''.
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:27, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Hylton: no, that's not enough for divestiture. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 20:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Vietnam 2005 Tying ==
| |
| | |
| ''Does a prohibition against agreements imposing trading conditions on other parties count as a prohibition against tying?''
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 14:51, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Hylton: no, this is a prohibition against resale price maintenance. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 20:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Vietnam 2005 Dom. Efficiency Defense ==
| |
| | |
| ''Would this imply any sort of efficiency defense?''
| |
| | |
| "Several of these practices [by dominant firms] are not prohibited per se but
| |
| are prohibited if they actually cause loss to consumers or
| |
| have the intention of harming competition. However, no
| |
| criteria or guidelines for assessing such effect or
| |
| intentions are set out."
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 15:21, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Hylton: no, this is not a defense. For the purposes of this study, we are not differentiating between per se and rule of reasons tests. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:48, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Yugoslavia 1996 Divestitures ==
| |
| | |
| ''Divestitures?''
| |
| | |
| Article 6(1) - "When the Anti-Monopoly Commission finds that an economic agent has misused its monopolistic or
| |
| dominant position on the market or concluded a monopolistic accord, it shall render a decision
| |
| ordering the economic agent concerned '''to take appropriate steps towards eliminating the established
| |
| irregularities or deficiencies'''."
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 16:49, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Based on Hylton's comments re: Venezuela, this is not sufficient for divestiture. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 20:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Mali 1992 Predatory Pricing ==
| |
| | |
| ''Looks like predatory pricing:''
| |
| | |
| Article 17 - "[The following is a prohibited act:] the sale at a loss. [It is] regarded as sale at a loss, any resale in the state of goods or products at a price lower than its effective purchase price."
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 06:50, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Mali 1992 Predatory Pricing Defense ==
| |
| | |
| ''The statute seems to allow a type of efficiency defense for predatory pricing, however they do not have a broader dominance efficiency defense. How should I code this, I'm leaning towards as a comment to price setting.''
| |
| | |
| Article 17 - "[The following] are not aimed by this measurement [prohibiting predatory pricing]: (1) resale of non durable products since they are threatened of fast detoriation; (2) voluntary or forced resale, moved by the suspension or the change of a commercial activity."
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 06:53, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| Hylton: do not include this as an efficiency defense, instead just mention it as a comment in price setting. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:41, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
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)