Hukum persaingan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Dari Wikipedia Indonesia, ensiklopedia bebas berbahasa Indonesia
 | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United Kingdom and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject . Contoh dan perspektif dalam artikel ini terutama berhubungan dengan Inggris dan tidak mewakili seluruh dunia melihat dari subjek. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page . Harap memperbaiki artikel ini atau membahas persoalan di halaman bicara. |
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed . The kenetralan artikel ini adalah sengketa. Please see the discussion on the talk page . (December 2008) Silakan lihat diskusi di halaman pembicaraan. (Desember 2008) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. Jangan hapus pesan ini sampai sengketa sudah terselesaikan. |
Competition law , known in the United States as antitrust law , has three main elements: Persaingan hukum, yang dikenal di Amerika Serikat sebagai undang-undang antitrust, memiliki tiga unsur utama:
- prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. melarang perjanjian atau praktek yang membatasi perdagangan bebas dan persaingan antara entitas bisnis. This includes in particular the repression of cartels . Ini termasuk khususnya represi dari kartel.
- banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. banning kasar oleh perilaku perusahaan yang mendominasi pasar, atau praktek-praktek anti persaingan yang cenderung mengarah pada suatu posisi dominan. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing , tying , price gouging , refusal to deal , and many others. Praktik dikontrol dengan cara ini mungkin termasuk harga ganas, Tying, harga gouging, penolakan untuk menangani, dan banyak lainnya.
- supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures . mengawasi merger dan akuisisi perusahaan-perusahaan besar, termasuk beberapa joint Ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licences or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing. Transaksi yang dianggap mengancam proses kompetitif dapat dilarang sama sekali, atau disetujui terganggu "remedies" seperti kewajiban untuk melepaskan bagian dari bisnis atau digabung untuk menawarkan lisensi atau akses ke fasilitas yang memungkinkan untuk melanjutkan usaha yang lain bersaing.
The substance and practice of competition law vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Substansi dan praktek hukum persaingan berbeda dari yurisdiksi ke yurisdiksi. Protecting the interests of consumers ( consumer welfare ) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives. Melindungi kepentingan konsumen (konsumen kesejahteraan) dan memastikan bahwa pengusaha memiliki kesempatan untuk bersaing di pasar ekonomi seringkali diperlakukan sebagai tujuan penting. Competition law is closely connected with law on deregulation of access to markets, state aids and subsidies, the privatisation of state owned assets and the establishment of independent sector regulators. Kompetisi hukum sangat berhubungan dengan deregulasi undang-undang tentang akses ke pasar, negara dan bantuan subsidi, maka privatisasi aset milik negara dan pembangunan sektor regulator independen. In recent decades, competition law has been viewed as a way to provide better public services . [ 1 ] Robert Bork has found that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater then benefits for the consumers. [ 2 ] The history of competition law reaches back to the Roman Empire . Dalam dekade belakangan ini, kompetisi hukum telah dilihat sebagai cara untuk lebih baik memberikan pelayanan publik. [1] Robert Bork telah menemukan bahwa hukum persaingan dapat menghasilkan efek Adverse saat mereka mengurangi kompetisi oleh kompetitor melindungi dan tidak efisien bila biaya intervensi hukum maka keuntungan lebih besar bagi konsumen. [2] sejarah hukum persaingan mencapai kembali ke Empayar Rom. The business practices of market traders, guilds and governments have always been subject to scrutiny, and sometimes severe sanctions. Praktek bisnis pedagang pasar, Guilds dan pemerintah harus selalu tunduk pada keterbukaan, dan kadang-kadang sanksi berat. Since the twentieth century, competition law has become global. Sejak abad kedua puluh, telah menjadi hukum persaingan global. The two largest and most influential systems of competition regulation are United States antitrust law and European Community competition law . Kedua terbesar dan paling berpengaruh sistem kompetisi adalah peraturan undang-undang antitrust Amerika Serikat dan Eropa kompetisi Komunitas hukum. National and regional competition authorities across the world have formed international support and enforcement networks. Nasional dan regional kompetisi berwenang di seluruh dunia internasional telah membentuk jaringan dukungan dan penegakan hukum.
[ edit ] History [Sunting] Sejarah
Laws governing competition are found in over two millennia of history. Undang-undang tentang persaingan yang ditemukan di lebih dari dua ribuan tahun sejarah. Roman Emperors and Medieval monarchs alike used tariffs to stabilize prices or support local production. Roman Emperors dan Medieval monarchs sama digunakan tarif untuk menstabilkan harga atau mendukung produksi lokal. The formal study of " competition ", began in earnest during the 18th century with such works as Adam Smith 's The Wealth of Nations . Formal kajian "kompetisi", mulai betul selama abad 18 dengan bekerja sebagai Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Different terms were used to describe this area of the law, including " restrictive practices ", "the law of monopolies", " combination acts " and the "restraint of trade". Berbagai istilah digunakan untuk menjelaskan ini wilayah hukum, termasuk "membatasi praktik", "hukum monopoli", "kombinasi bertindak" dan "perdagangan bebas".
[ edit ] Roman legislation [Sunting] Roma legislasi
- See also: Roman law Lihat juga: Roma hukum
An early example of competition law is the Lex Julia de Annona , enacted during the Roman Republic around 50 BC. [ 3 ] To protect the grain trade, heavy fines were imposed on anyone directly, deliberately and insidiously stopping supply ships. [ 4 ] Under Diocletian in 301 AD an edict imposed the death penalty for anyone violating a tariff system, for example by buying up, concealing or contriving the scarcity of everyday goods. [ 4 ] Sebuah contoh awal kompetisi hukum adalah Lex Julia de Annona, berlaku selama Republik Rom sekitar 50 BC. [3] Untuk melindungi perdagangan gandum, berat denda yang dikenakan pada orang langsung, sengaja insidiously dan menghentikan pasokan kapal. [4] Pada Diocletian pada 301 AD sebuah dekrit dikenakan hukuman mati bagi siapapun yang melanggar sistem tarif, misalnya dengan membeli atas, concealing atau contriving yang kelangkaan barang sehari-hari. [4]
More legislation came under the Constitution of Zeno of 483 AD, which can be traced into Florentine Municipal laws of 1322 and 1325. [ 5 ] This provided for confiscation of property and banishment for any trade combinations or joint action of monopolies private or granted by the Emperor. Zeno rescinded all previously granted exclusive rights. [ 6 ] Justinian I subsequently introduced legislation to pay officials to manage state monopolies. [ 6 ] As Europe slipped into the dark ages , so did the records of law making until the Middle Ages brought greater expansion of trade in the time of lex mercatoria . Lagi datang di bawah undang-undang Konstitusi Zeno dari 483 AD, yang dapat menjadi Florentine Kota pelaksanaan undang-undang 1322 dan 1325. [5] Hal ini disediakan untuk penyitaan dan pembuangan dari properti untuk perdagangan kombinasi atau gabungan dari tindakan monopoli swasta atau diberikan oleh emperor. Zeno rescinded semua hak eksklusif yang diberikan sebelumnya. [6] Justinian I kemudian memperkenalkan legislasi untuk membayar pejabat negara untuk mengelola monopoli. [6] Sebagai Eropa tergelincir ke dalam usia tua, demikian pula yang membuat catatan hukum sampai abad lebih membawa perluasan perdagangan dalam waktu lex mercatoria.
[ edit ] Middle ages [Sunting] Middle ages
- See also: Lex Mercatoria and Guilds Lihat juga: Lex Mercatoria dan Guilds
Legislation in England to control monopolies and restrictive practices were in force well before the Norman Conquest . [ 6 ] The Domesday Book recorded that " foresteel " (ie forestalling, the practice of buying up goods before they reach market and then inflating the prices) was one of three forfeitures that King Edward the Confessor could carry out through England. [ 7 ] But concern for fair prices also led to attempts to directly regulate the market. Perundang-undangan di Inggris untuk mengendalikan dan membatasi praktek monopoli yang berlaku baik sebelum Penaklukan Norman. [6] The Domesday Buku dicatat bahwa "foresteel" (yakni forestalling, praktik pembelian atas barang sebelum mereka mencapai pasar dan kemudian inflating harga) telah salah satu dari tiga forfeitures bahwa Raja Edward the Confessor dapat dilakukan melalui Inggris. [7] Namun kepedulian untuk adil harga juga menyebabkan upaya untuk mengatur secara langsung di pasar. Under Henry III an act was passed in 1266 [ 8 ] to fix bread and ale prices in correspondence with corn prices laid down by the assizes . Di bawah Henry III perbuatan disahkan pada 1266 [8] untuk memperbaiki dan roti ale harga korespondensi dengan harga jagung diletakkan di bawah oleh assizes. Penalties for breach included amercements , pillory and tumbrel . [ 9 ] A fourteenth century statute labelled forestallers as "oppressors of the poor and the community at large and enemies of the whole country." [ 10 ] Under King Edward III the Statute of Labourers of 1349 [ 11 ] fixed wages of artificers and workmen and decreed that foodstuffs should be sold at reasonable prices. Hukuman untuk pelanggaran termasuk amercements, kekurangan dan tumbrel. [9] J keempatbelas undang-abad dicap sebagai forestallers "oppressors masyarakat miskin dan masyarakat di besar dan musuh dari seluruh negara." [10] Di bawah Raja Edward III pada Statuta dari buruh dari 1349 [11] tetap upah pekerja dan artificers dan menentukan makanan yang harus dijual dengan harga yang terjangkau. On top of existing penalties, the statute stated that overcharging merchants must pay the injured party double the sum he received, an idea that has been replicated in punitive treble damages under US antitrust law . Di atas ada sanksi, undang-undang yang menyatakan bahwa berlebihan pedagang harus membayar dua pihak terluka jumlah dia terima, sebuah ide yang telah direplikasi di menghukum melipattigakan kerusakan di bawah undang-undang antitrust Amerika Serikat. Also under Edward III, the following statutory provision outlawed trade combinations. [ 12 ] Edward III juga di bawah, berikut ini ketentuan undang-undang perdagangan outlawed kombinasi. [12]
"...we have ordained and established, that no merchant or other shall make Confederacy, Conspiracy, Coin, Imagination, or Murmur, or Evil Device in any point that may turn to the Impeachment, Disturbance, Defeating or Decay of the said Staples, or of anything that to them pertaineth, or may pertain." "... kami telah diurapi dan didapatkan, bahwa tidak ada pedagang atau lainnya akan membuat persekongkolan, Conspiracy, Coin, Imagination, atau mengaduh, atau Evil Device di manapun yang mungkin berbalik ke tuduhan, Gangguan, atau Defeating Decay dari berkata Staples , atau apapun yang mereka pertaineth, atau mungkin berhubungan. "
Examples of legislation in mainland Europe include the constitutiones juris metallici by Wenceslas II of Bohemia between 1283 and 1305, condemning combinations of ore traders increasing prices; the Municipal Statutes of Florence in 1322 and 1325 followed Zeno 's legislation against state monopolies; and under Emperor Charles V in the Holy Roman Empire a law was passed "to prevent losses resulting from monopolies and improper contracts which many merchants and artisans made in the Netherlands." Contoh-contoh perundang-undangan di daratan Eropa termasuk constitutiones juris metallici oleh Wenceslas II dari Bohemia antara 1283 dan 1305, condemning kombinasi bijih pedagang meningkatkan harga; di Kota Statutes of Florence di 1322 dan 1325 diikuti Zeno 's monopoli negara terhadap undang-undang, dan di bawah Kaisar Charles V di Kudus Rum hukum yang telah disahkan "untuk mencegah kerugian akibat dari monopoli dan penanganan kontrak yang banyak pedagang dan artisans dibuat di Belanda." In 1553 King Henry VIII reintroduced tariffs for foodstuffs, designed to stabilise prices, in the face of fluctuations in supply from overseas. Dalam 1553 Raja Henry VIII reintroduced tarif untuk makanan, yang dirancang untuk menstabilkan harga, di muka di fluktuasi pasokan dari luar negeri. So the legislation read here that whereas, Sehingga undang-undang yang membaca sedangkan disini,
"it is very hard and difficult to put certain prices to any such things... [it is necessary because] prices of such victuals be many times enhanced and raised by the Greedy Covetousness and Appetites of the Owners of such Victuals, by occasion of ingrossing and regrating the same, more than upon any reasonable or just ground or cause, to the great damage and impoverishing of the King's subjects." [ 13 ] "sangat keras dan sulit untuk memberlakukan harga tertentu untuk semua hal-hal seperti itu ... [itu diperlukan karena] harga makanan seperti itu banyak kali disempurnakan dan dibangkitkan oleh Greedy Covetousness dan Appetites dari Pemilik dari makanan, oleh menyambut ingrossing dan regrating yang sama, lebih dari pada apapun yang wajar atau hanya tanah atau menyebabkan, untuk kerusakan yang besar dan impoverishing dari King's mata pelajaran. "[13]
Around this time organisations representing various tradesmen and handicraftspeople, known as guilds had been developing, and enjoyed many concessions and exemptions from the laws against monopolies. Sekitar waktu ini mewakili berbagai organisasi pedagang dan handicraftspeople, yang dikenal sebagai Guilds telah berkembang dan dinikmati banyak konsesi dan pembebasan dari hukum terhadap monopoli. The privileges conferred were not abolished until the Municipal Corporations Act 1835. Conferred hak yang tidak dihapuskan sampai Kota Korporasi Act 1835.
[ edit ] Renaissance developments [Sunting] Renaissance perkembangan
- See also: Renaissance Lihat juga: Renaisans
Europe around the 16th century was changing quickly. Eropa sekitar abad 16. Telah berubah dengan cepat. The new world had just been opened up, overseas trade and plunder was pouring wealth through the international economy and attitudes among businessmen were shifting. Di dunia baru yang baru saja dibuka, perdagangan luar negeri dan telah membajak menuangkan kekayaan melalui internasional ekonomi dan sikap yang pergeseran di kalangan pengusaha. In 1561 a system of Industrial Monopoly Licences, similar to modern patents had been introduced into England. 1561 dalam sistem Industri Monopoly lisensi, mirip dengan modern paten telah diperkenalkan ke Inggris. But by the reign of Queen Elizabeth I , the system was reputedly much abused and used merely to preserve privileges, encouraging nothing new in the way of innovation or manufacture. [ 14 ] When a protest was made in the House of Commons and a Bill was introduced, the Queen convinced the protesters to challenge the case in the courts. Tetapi oleh pemerintahan Ratu Elizabeth I, sistem konon banyak disalahgunakan dan digunakan hanya untuk melindungi hak, mendorong sesuatu yang baru di jalan inovasi atau manufaktur. [14] Bila protes dilakukan di House of Commons dan RUU itu diperkenalkan, Ratu diyakinkan protesters ke tantangan yang terjadi di pengadilan. This was the catalyst for the Case of Monopolies or Darcy v. Allin . [ 15 ] The plaintiff, an officer of the Queen's household, had been granted the sole right of making playing cards and claimed damages for the defendant's infringement of this right. Ini merupakan katalisator untuk Kasus monopoli atau Darcy ayat Allin. [15] The penggugat, seorang pegawai Ratu rumah tangga, telah diberikan sepenuhnya merupakan hak membuat bermain kartu dan diklaim kerusakan untuk terdakwa dari pelanggaran atas hak ini. The court found the grant void and that three characteristics of monopoly were (1) price increases (2) quality decrease (3) the tendency to reduce artificers to idleness and beggary. Pengadilan menemukan bahwa hibah void dan tiga karakteristik monopoli adalah (1) kenaikan harga (2) penurunan kualitas (3) kecenderungan artificers untuk mengurangi pengangguran dan kemiskinan. This put a temporary end to complaints about monopoly, until King James I began to grant them again. Sementara ini menempatkan akhir untuk keluhan tentang monopoli, sampai Raja James I mulai memberi mereka lagi. In 1623 Parliament passed the Statute of Monopolies , which for the most part excluded patent rights from its prohibitions, as well as guilds. 1623 di Parlemen lulus Statuta dari monopoli, yang sebagian besar dikecualikan dari hak paten prohibitions, serta Guilds. From King Charles I , through the civil war and to King Charles II , monopolies continued, especially useful for raising revenue. [ 16 ] Then in 1684, in East India Company v. Sandys [ 17 ] it was decided that exclusive rights to trade only outside the realm were legitimate, on the grounds that only large and powerful concerns could trade in the conditions prevailing overseas. Dari Raja Charles I, melalui perang sipil dan Raja Charles II, monopoli lanjutan, terutama berguna untuk meningkatkan pendapatan. [16] Kemudian pada 1684, di East India Company v. Sandys [17] telah diputuskan bahwa hak eksklusif untuk perdagangan hanya di luar lapangan adalah sah, atas dasar yang kuat dan besar hanya dapat keprihatinan perdagangan dalam kondisi berlaku di luar negeri. In 1710 to deal with high coal prices caused by a Newcastle Coal Monopoly the New Law was passed. [ 18 ] Its provisions stated that "all and every contract or contracts, Covenants and Agreements, whether the same be in writing or not in writing... are hereby declared to be illegal." Pada 1710 untuk menangani tingginya harga batu bara disebabkan oleh Newcastle Coal Monopoly Baru UU disahkan. [18] ketentuan yang menyatakan bahwa "semua dan setiap kontrak atau kontrak, dan Perjanjian Perjanjian, baik yang sama dibuat secara tertulis atau tidak tertulis. .. ini yang dinyatakan melanggar hukum. " When Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776 [ 19 ] he was somewhat cynical of the possibility for change. Ketika Adam Smith menulis Wealth of Nations di 1776 [19] dia agak sinis terhadap kemungkinan untuk berubah.
"To expect indeed that freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain is as absurd as to expect that Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices of the public, but what is more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals irresistibly oppose it. The Member of Parliament who supports any proposal for strengthening this Monopoly is seen to acquire not only the reputation for understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of men whose members and wealth render them of great importance." "Untuk benar-benar berharap bahwa kebebasan perdagangan yg harus dikembalikan sepenuhnya di Inggris adalah sebagai mustahil untuk mengharapkan bahwa Oceana atau Utopia harus pernah dibentuk di dalamnya. Tidak hanya prasangka dari masyarakat, tetapi apa yang lebih tak tertundukkan, kepentingan pribadi banyak individu irresistibly menentang itu. Para Anggota Parlemen yang mendukung semua proposal untuk memperkuat Monopoly ini dianggap tidak hanya untuk memperoleh reputasi untuk memahami perdagangan, tetapi popularitas dan pengaruh besar dengan urutan laki-laki yang menyebabkan anggota dan kekayaan mereka yang sangat penting . "
[ edit ] Restraint of trade [Sunting] perdagangan bebas
The English law of restraint of trade is the direct predecessor to modern competition law. [ 20 ] Its current use is small, given modern and economically oriented statutes in most common law countries. Inggris hukum pengekangan perdagangan adalah pendahulu langsung ke kompetisi modern hukum. [20] yang saat ini digunakan adalah kecil, yang modern dan berorientasi ekonomi statutes paling umum dalam hukum negara. Its approach was based on the two concepts of prohibiting agreements that ran counter to public policy, unless the reasonableness of an agreement could be shown. Pendekatan yang didasarkan pada dua konsep perjanjian yang melarang berlari ke counter kebijakan publik, kecuali reasonableness suatu perjanjian dapat ditampilkan. A restraint of trade is simply some kind of agreed provision that is designed to restrain another's trade. J perdagangan bebas hanya beberapa jenis disepakati ketentuan yang dirancang untuk membatasi perdagangan lain. For example, in Nordenfelt v. Maxim, Nordenfelt Gun Co. [ 21 ] a Swedish arm inventor promised on sale of his business to an American gun maker that he "would not make guns or ammunition anywhere in the world, and would not compete with Maxim in any way." Misalnya, dalam ayat Nordenfelt Maxim, Nordenfelt Gun Co [21] Swedia yang dijanjikan pada lengan penemu penjualan usahanya ke Amerika gun maker bahwa ia "tidak akan membuat senjata atau amunisi di manapun di dunia, dan tidak akan bersaing dengan Maxim dengan cara apapun. "
To be consider whether or not there is a restraint of trade in the first place, both parties must have provided valuable consideration for their agreement. Harus mempertimbangkan apakah ada perdagangan bebas di tempat pertama, kedua belah pihak harus disediakan berharga pertimbangan bagi kesepakatan. In Dyer's case [ 22 ] a dyer had given a bond not to exercise his trade in the same town as the plaintiff for six months but the plaintiff had promised nothing in return. Dyer dalam kasus [22] tukang celup yang telah diberikan obligasi yang tidak melakukan perdagangan di kota yang sama sebagai penggugat selama enam bulan, namun penggugat telah dijanjikan tidak ada dalam kembali. On hearing the plaintiff's attempt to enforce this restraint, Hull J exclaimed, Pada sidang yang penggugat dari upaya untuk menegakkan ini pemenjaraan, Hull J berkata,
"per Dieu, if the plaintiff were here, he should go to prison until he had paid a fine to the King." "per Dieu, jika penggugat telah di sini, ia harus pergi ke penjara sampai ia membayar denda kepada Raja."
The common law has evolved to reflect changing business conditions. Hukum umum yang telah berevolusi untuk mencerminkan perubahan kondisi bisnis. So in the 1613 case of Rogers v. Parry [ 23 ] a court held that a joiner who promised not to trade from his house for 21 years could have this bond enforced against him since the time and place was certain. Jadi dalam hal Rogers 1613 penangkisan ayat [23] pengadilan menyatakan bahwa sebuah perkumpulan yang dijanjikan tidak perdagangan dari rumahnya selama 21 tahun ini bisa memiliki ikatan enforced terhadap dia sejak waktu dan tempat yang tertentu. It was also held that a man cannot bind himself to not use his trade generally by Chief Justice Coke . Ia juga menyatakan bahwa seorang manusia tidak dapat mengikat diri untuk tidak menggunakan nya perdagangan umumnya oleh Chief Justice Coke. This was followed in Broad v. Jolyffe [ 24 ] and Mitchell v. Reynolds [ 25 ] where Lord Macclesfield asked, "What does it signify to a tradesman in London what another does in Newcastle?" Ini diikuti dalam ayat Broad Jolyffe [24] dan ayat Mitchell Reynolds [25] di mana Tuhan Macclesfield ditanya, "Apakah yang menandakan ke pedagang di London yang lain tidak dalam Newcastle?" In times of such slow communications, commerce around the country it seemed axiomatic that a general restraint served no legitimate purpose for one's business and ought to be void. Pada saat seperti itu lambat komunikasi, perdagangan di seluruh Indonesia nampaknya aksiomatis yang umum dilayani pemenjaraan tidak sah untuk satu tujuan bisnis dan patut menjadi tidak berlaku. But already in 1880 in Roussillon v. Roussillon [ 26 ] Lord Justice Fry stated that a restraint unlimited in space need not be void, since the real question was whether it went further than necessary for the promisee's protection. 1880 tetapi sudah di dalam Roussillon ayat Roussillon [26] Tuhan Keadilan Fry menyatakan bahwa seorang diri tidak terbatas di ruang kosong tidak perlu, karena sebenarnya pertanyaan itu pergi lebih baik daripada yang diperlukan untuk perlindungan dari promisee. So in the Nordenfelt [ 27 ] case Lord McNaughton ruled that while one could validly promise to "not make guns or ammunition anywhere in the world" it was an unreasonable restraint to "not compete with Maxim in any way." Jadi dalam Nordenfelt [27] kasus McNaughton Tuhan memutuskan bahwa sementara kita dapat validly berjanji untuk "tidak membuat senjata atau amunisi di manapun di dunia" seorang diri ke keterlaluan "tidak bersaing dengan Maxim dengan cara apapun." This approach in England was confirmed by the House of Lords in Mason v. The Provident Supply and Clothing Co. [ 28 ] Pendekatan ini di Inggris telah dikonfirmasi oleh House of Lords Mason dalam ayat yang hemat dan Busana Supply Co [28]
[ edit ] Today [Sunting] Hari Ini
Modern competition law begins with the United States legislation of the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914. Modern hukum kompetisi diawali dengan undang-undang Amerika Serikat yang Sherman Act of 1890 dan Clayton Act of 1914. While other, particularly European, countries also had some form of regulation on monopolies and cartels, the US codification of the common law position on restraint of trade had a widespread effect on subsequent competition law development. Sedangkan lainnya, terutama Eropa, negara juga mempunyai beberapa bentuk peraturan monopoli dan kartel, Amerika Serikat dari kodifikasi hukum umum pada posisi perdagangan bebas yang luas telah berpengaruh terhadap perkembangan hukum persaingan selanjutnya. Both after World War II and after the fall of the Berlin wall competition law has gone through phases of renewed attention and legislative updates around the world. Kedua setelah Perang Dunia II dan setelah jatuh dari tembok Berlin hukum persaingan telah diperpanjang melalui tahapan perhatian dan legislatif pembaruan di seluruh dunia.
[ edit ] United States antitrust [Sunting] Amerika antitrust
The American term antitrust arose not because the US statutes had anything to do with ordinary trust law , but because the large American corporations used trusts to conceal the nature of their business arrangements. American istilah antitrust timbul bukan karena Amerika Serikat telah statutes kaitannya dengan biasa percaya hukum, namun karena perusahaan-perusahaan besar Amerika percaya digunakan untuk menyembunyikan sifat perjanjian bisnis mereka. Big trusts became synonymous with big monopolies, the perceived threat to democracy and the free market these trusts represented led to the Sherman and Clayton Acts . Percaya besar menjadi identik dengan monopoli besar, yang dianggap ancaman bagi demokrasi dan pasar bebas ini diwakili dipimpin percaya kepada Sherman dan Clayton Kisah. These laws, in part, codified past American and English common law of restraints of trade. Senator Hoar , an author of the Sherman Act said in a debate, "We have affirmed the old doctrine of the common law in regard to all inter-state and international commercial transactions and have clothed the United States courts with authority to enforce that doctrine by injunction." Undang-undang tersebut, dalam bagian, dikodifikasikan terakhir Amerika dan Inggris umum hukum restraints perdagangan. Senator uban, seorang penulis dari Sherman Act mengatakan dalam sebuah perdebatan, "Kami sudah lama menegaskan doktrin umum hukum dalam semua hal antar negara transaksi komersial dan internasional dan telah clothed Amerika Serikat pengadilan dengan kewenangan untuk menegakkan doktrin yang oleh perintah. " Evidence of the common law basis of the Sherman and Clayton acts is found in the Standard Oil case , [ 29 ] where Chief Justice White explicitly linked the Sherman Act with the common law and sixteenth century English statutes on engrossing. [ 30 ] The Act's wording also reflects common law. Bukti dari hukum umum dasar Sherman dan bertindak Clayton ditemukan dalam kasus Standard Oil, [29] dimana Chief Justice White secara eksplisit dihubungkan dengan Undang-Undang Sherman dengan hukum umum dan keenambelas statutes Inggris pada abad yg mengasyikkan. [30] Undang-undang dari kata juga mencerminkan hukum umum. The first two sections read as follows, Dua bagian sebagai berikut,
"Section 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine.... "Bagian 1. Setiap kontrak, kombinasi dalam bentuk kepercayaan atau sebaliknya, atau konspirasi, dalam pengendalian perdagangan atau commerce di antara beberapa negara, atau dengan bangsa asing, yang dinyatakan melanggar hukum. Setiap orang yang akan membuat kontrak atau terlibat dalam kombinasi atau konspirasi dengan ini dinyatakan melanggar hukum akan dianggap bersalah dari kejahatan besar, dan pada keyakinan itu, harus dihukum denda oleh ....
Section 2. Bagian 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine...." Setiap orang yang akan memegang hak monopoli, atau berusaha memonopoli, atau menggabungkan atau bersekongkol dengan orang lain atau orang, untuk memonopoli bagian dari perdagangan atau commerce di antara beberapa negara, atau dengan bangsa asing, akan dianggap bersalah dari kejahatan besar, dan , pada keyakinan itu, harus dihukum denda oleh ...."
The Sherman Act did not have the immediate effects its authors intended, though Republican President Theodore Roosevelt 's federal government sued 45 companies, and William Taft used it against 75. Undang-Undang Sherman yang tidak mempunyai efek langsung yang dimaksudkan penulis, meskipun Republican Presiden Theodore Roosevelt 's pemerintah federal digugat 45 perusahaan, dan William Taft menggunakannya melawan 75. The Clayton Act of 1914 was passed to supplement the Sherman Act. The Clayton Act 1914 yang telah disahkan untuk melengkapi dengan Sherman Act. Specific categories of abusive conduct were listed, including price discrimination (section 2), exclusive dealings (section 3) and mergers which substantially lessen competition (section 7). Spesifik kategori kasar telah melakukan terdaftar, termasuk diskriminasi harga (bagian 2), transaksi eksklusif (bagian 3) dan merger yang substansial mengurangi kompetisi (pasal 7). Section 6 exempted trade unions from the law's operation. Pasal 6 serikat pekerja dibebaskan dari hukum dari operasi. Both the Sherman and Clayton acts are now codified under Title 15 of the United States Code . Kedua Sherman dan bertindak Clayton sekarang dikodifikasikan di Title 15 of the United States Code.
Since the mid-1970s, courts and enforcement officials generally have supported view that antitrust law policy should not follow social and political aims that undermine economic efficiency. [ 31 ] The antitrust laws were minimalized in the mid-1980s under influence of Chicago school of economics and blamed for the loss of economic supremacy in the world. [ 32 ] Sejak pertengahan tahun 1970-an, para pejabat pengadilan dan penegakan hukum umumnya telah mendukung pandangan bahwa undang-undang antitrust seharusnya tidak mengikuti kebijakan sosial dan politik yang bertujuan merusak ekonomi efisiensi. [31] undang-undang antitrust yang telah minimalized di pertengahan tahun 1980-an di bawah pengaruh sekolah ekonomi Chicago dan cela untuk kehilangan supremasi ekonomi di dunia. [32]
[ edit ] Development in other countries [Sunting] Pembangunan di negara-negara lain
 | This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes . Artikel ini adalah bagian atau hilang citations kebutuhan atau catatan kaki. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (July 2008) Menggunakan inline citations membantu menjaga terhadap pelanggaran hak cipta dan faktual ketidakakuratan. (Juli 2008) |
- See also: Competition regulator Lihat juga: Kompetisi regulator
In the 1930s, Americans' fear of big business and their impending loss of accountability initiated the most aggressive antitrust campaign in history. Pada 1930an, Amerika 'takut besar dan bisnis mereka mendatang kehilangan akuntabilitas dimulai antitrust yang paling agresif dalam sejarah kampanye.
However, Britain, Australia, France, Nazi Germany and Japan found American-style antitrust incompatible to their cultures and institutions. Namun, Inggris, Australia, Perancis, Nazi Jerman dan Jepang menemukan gaya antitrust Amerika bertentangan dengan budaya dan institusi. An about face emerged after the World War when governments of those nations and the European Community progressively adopted antitrust measures. Tentang wajah yang muncul setelah Perang Dunia ketika pemerintah dan orang-orang bangsa Eropa Komunitas antitrust mengadopsi langkah-langkah progresif. The international spread of antitrust correlates to the process of global capitalism, where antitrust was a pivotal conflict between state sovereignty and globalization as demonstrated by proceedings in the WTO. [ 33 ] Internasional penyebaran antitrust berkorelasi dengan proses kapitalisme global, di mana antitrust penting adalah konflik antara kedaulatan negara dan globalisasi seperti yang ditunjukkan oleh proses di WTO. [33]
It was after World War I that countries began to follow the United States' lead in competition policy. Ia setelah Perang Dunia I negara-negara yang mulai mengikuti Amerika Serikat memimpin dalam kompetisi kebijakan. In 1923 Canada introduced the Combines Investigation Act and in 1926 France reinforced its basic competition provisions from the 1810 Code Napoleon. Kanada diperkenalkan pada tahun 1923 yang menggabungkan Investigasi Act 1926 di Perancis dan dikuatkan dengan dasar kompetisi ketentuan dari 1810 Kode Napoleon. After the Second World War , the Allies, led by the United States , introduced tight regulation of cartels and monopolies in occupied Germany and Japan . Setelah Perang Dunia Kedua, yang sekutunya, yang dipimpin oleh Amerika Serikat, memperkenalkan peraturan ketat dari monopoli dan kartel dalam diduduki Jerman dan Jepang. In Germany, despite the existence of laws against unfair competition passed in 1909 ( Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb or UWB ) it was widely believed that the predominance of large cartels of German industry had made it easier for the Nazis to assume total economic control, simply by bribing or blackmailing the heads of a small number of industrial magnates. Di Jerman, meskipun adanya kompetisi yang tidak adil terhadap undang-undang yang disahkan pada 1909 (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb atau UWB) ia sangat percaya bahwa hal paling besar dari kartel industri Jerman telah memberikan kemudahan bagi Nazis untuk menganggap total kontrol ekonomi, cukup bribing oleh atau blackmailing di kepala sejumlah industri magnates. Similarly in Japan, where business was organised along family and nepotistic ties, the zaibatsu were easy for the despotic government to manipulate into the war effort. Demikian pula di Jepang, di mana usaha yang diatur sepanjang nepotistic dan ikatan keluarga, yang zaibatsu yang mudah bagi pemerintah untuk memanipulasi zalim ke dalam upaya perang. Following, unconditional surrender tighter controls, replicating American policy were introduced. Berikut, menyerah tak bersyarat tighter kontrol, kebijakan Menggandakan Amerika telah diperkenalkan.
Further developments however were considerably overshadowed by the move towards nationalisation and industry wide planning in many countries. Namun perkembangan lebih lanjut yang sangat overshadowed oleh bergerak menuju nationalisation lebar perencanaan dan industri di banyak negara. Making the economy and industry democratically accountable through direct government action became a priority. Coal industry, railroads , steel , electricity , water , health care and many other sectors were targeted for their special qualities of being natural monopolies . Commonwealth countries were reluctant in enacting statutory competition law provisions. Menjadikan ekonomi dan industri demokratis bertanggung jawab langsung pemerintah melalui tindakan menjadi prioritas. Batubara industri, railroads, baja, listrik, air, kesehatan dan banyak sektor lain yang ditujukan khusus bagi mereka yang kualitas alam monopoli. Commonwealth enggan di negara-negara yang menjadikan undang-undang ketentuan hukum persaingan. The United Kingdom introduced the (considerably less stringent) Restrictive Practices Act in 1956. Inggris memperkenalkan (sangat kurang ketat) membatasi Practices Act pada tahun 1956. Australia introduced its current Trade Practices Act in 1974. Australia yang saat ini diperkenalkan Trade Practices Act pada tahun 1974. Jersey introduced its competition law only in 2005. Jersey diperkenalkan dengan hukum persaingan hanya pada tahun 2005. Recently however there has been a wave of updates, especially in Europe to harmonise legislation with contemporary competition law thinking. Namun baru-baru ini ada gelombang pembaruan, terutama di Eropa untuk harmonise kontemporer kompetisi dengan undang-undang hukum berpikir.
[ edit ] European Union law [Sunting] Uni Eropa hukum
In 1957 six Western European countries signed the Treaty of the European Community (EC Treaty or Treaty of Rome), which over the last fifty years has grown into a European Union of nearly half a billion citizens. 1957 di enam negara-negara Eropa Barat menandatangani perjanjian dari Komunitas Eropa (EC Treaty atau Perjanjian Roma), yang selama lima puluh tahun telah berkembang menjadi Uni Eropa yang hampir setengah miliar warga. The European Community is the name for the economic and social pillar of EU law , under which competition law falls. Masyarakat Eropa adalah nama bagi ekonomi dan sosial tiang hukum Uni Eropa, di bawah undang-undang persaingan yang jatuh. Healthy competition is seen as an essential element in the creation of a common market free from restraints on trade. [ 34 ] The first provision is Article 81 EC, which deals with cartels and restrictive vertical agreements. Persaingan sehat dianggap sebagai sebuah elemen penting dalam penciptaan pasar bebas yang umum dari restraints pada perdagangan. [34] Yang pertama adalah ketentuan Pasal 81 Komisi Eropa, yang berkaitan dengan kartel vertikal dan membatasi perjanjian. Prohibited are: Dilarang adalah:
"(1) ...all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market..." "(1) ... semua perjanjian antara undertakings, keputusan undertakings oleh asosiasi yang terpadu dan praktek yang dapat mempengaruhi perdagangan antara negara-negara anggota dan mereka yang ada sebagai obyek atau efek pencegahan, pembatasan atau distorsi kompetisi di pasar umum ... "
Article 81 (1) EC then gives examples of "hard core" restrictive practices such as price fixing or market sharing and 81(2) EC confirms that any agreements are automatically void. Pasal 81 (1) Komisi Eropa kemudian memberikan contoh "hard core" membatasi praktik seperti penetapan harga pasar atau sharing dan 81 (2) Komisi Eropa untuk mengkonfirmasi bahwa setiap perjanjian secara otomatis tidak berlaku. However, just like the Statute of Monopolies 1623 , Article 81 (3) EC creates exemptions, if the collusion is for distributional or technological innovation, gives consumers a "fair share" of the benefit and does not include unreasonable restraints (or disproportionate, in ECJ terminology) that risk eliminating competition anywhere. Article 82 EC deals with monopolies, or more precisely firms who have a dominant market share and abuse that position. Namun, seperti yang Statuta dari monopoli 1623, Pasal 81 (3) Komisi Eropa menciptakan pembebasan, jika kolusi adalah untuk distributional atau inovasi teknologi, yang memberikan konsumen "adil berbagi" dari keuntungan dan tidak rewel termasuk restraints (atau disproporsional, dalam ECJ terminologi) yang menghilangkan risiko kompetisi manapun. Pasal 82 Komisi Eropa berkaitan dengan monopoli, atau lebih tepatnya perusahaan yang memiliki pangsa pasar dominan dan penyalahgunaan posisi itu. Unlike US Antitrust , EC law has never been used to punish the existence of dominant firms, but merely imposes a special responsibility to conduct oneself appropriately. [ 35 ] Specific categories of abuse listed in Article 82 EC include price discrimination and exclusive dealing, much the same as sections 2 and 3 of the US Clayton Act. Tidak seperti US Antitrust, EC hukum belum pernah digunakan untuk menghukum keberadaan perusahaan dominan, tetapi hanya membebankan tanggung jawab khusus untuk melakukan diri dengan baik. [35] Khusus kategori pelanggaran yang tercantum dalam Pasal 82 Komisi Eropa termasuk harga diskriminasi dan eksklusif berhubungan, banyak yang sama dengan bagian 2 dan 3 dari US Clayton Act. Also under Article 82 EC, the European Council was empowered to enact a regulation to control mergers between firms, currently the latest known by the abbreviation of Regulation 139/2004/EC . Juga di bawah Pasal 82 Komisi Eropa, Dewan Eropa adalah kewenangan untuk membuat peraturan untuk mengendalikan merger antara perusahaan, saat ini baru diketahui oleh singkatan dari Regulasi 139/2004/EC. The general test is whether a concentration (ie merger or acquisition) with a community dimension (ie affects a number of EU member states) might significantly impede effective competition. Umum tes apakah konsentrasi (yakni merger atau akuisisi) dengan dimensi masyarakat (yakni mempengaruhi sejumlah negara anggota Uni Eropa) mungkin cukup efektif menghalangi kompetisi. Again, the similarity to the Clayton Act 's substantial lessening of competition. Sekali lagi, kesamaan dengan Undang-Undang Clayton 's substansial berkurangnya kompetisi. Finally, Articles 86 and 87 EC regulate the state's role in the market. Terakhir, Pasal 86 dan 87 EC mengatur peran negara dalam pasar. Article 86(2) EC states clearly that nothing in the rules can be used to obstruct a member state's right to deliver public services, but that otherwise public enterprises must play by the same rules on collusion and abuse of dominance as everyone else. Pasal 86 (2) Komisi Eropa menyatakan dengan jelas bahwa tidak ada dalam aturan dapat digunakan untuk menghambat negara anggota berhak untuk menyampaikan pelayanan publik, tetapi sebaliknya perusahaan publik harus bermain oleh aturan yang sama pada kolusi dan penyalahgunaan kekuasaan sebagai orang lain. Article 87 EC, similar to Article 81 EC, lays down a general rule that the state may not aid or subsidise private parties in distortion of free competition, but then grants exceptions for things like charities, natural disasters or regional development. Pasal 87 Komisi Eropa, mirip dengan Pasal 81 Komisi Eropa, meletakkan bawah aturan umum bahwa negara tidak boleh subsidise bantuan atau pihak swasta yang bebas distorsi dalam kompetisi, tetapi kemudian hibah pengecualian untuk hal-hal seperti amal, bencana alam atau pembangunan daerah.
[ edit ] Antimonopoly Law of China [Sunting] Antimonopoly Hukum Cina
[ 36 ] [ 37 ] The idea of a comprehensive Antimonopoly Law for the People's Republic of China surfaced in 1987, in response to the diverse and incoherent existing laws such as Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Price Law, Foreign Trade Law. [36] [37] Ide yang komprehensif untuk Antimonopoly Hukum People's Republic of China surfaced pada tahun 1987, sebagai jawaban terhadap beragam dan kacau undang-undang yang ada seperti Anti-Unfair Persaingan Hukum, Harga Hukum, Hukum Perdagangan Luar Negeri. Representatives from various agencies and academic institutions began drafting the new Law in 1994. Perwakilan dari berbagai badan dan lembaga mulai rancangan UU yang baru pada tahun 1994. However, the initial drafts often reflected divergent and inconsistent goals among its various agencies. Namun, pada awalnya konsep sering terlihat berbeda dan tidak konsisten di antara berbagai tujuan lembaga. The final version of the law was finally adopted by the People's Congress on 30 August 2007 [ citation needed ] and took effect on 1 August 2008. Versi terakhir dari hukum itu akhirnya disetujui oleh Kongres Rakyat pada tanggal 30 Agustus 2007 [kutipan diperlukan] dan membawa efek pada 1 Agustus 2008.
While the language of the new law is neutral subjecting both domestic and foreign entities to equal scrutiny, there are concerns among foreign entities about its implementation and enforcement. Sementara bahasa undang-undang yang baru adalah netral subjecting baik domestik maupun asing ke badan sama keterbukaan, ada kekhawatiran di antara badan asing tentang implementasi dan penegakan hukum.
Concerns are reflected by the significant market leadership foreign companies have and the increasing acquisition of domestic companies by foreign investments, where the law might be used to protect domestic entities. Keprihatinan yang tercermin pada signifikan kepemimpinan pasar perusahaan asing yang ada dan meningkatkan akuisisi perusahaan domestik oleh investor asing, di mana hukum mungkin digunakan untuk melindungi badan domestik. There are also concerns, similar to elsewhere, of consumers being victims of roadkill in the interest of protecting competition. Ada juga kekhawatiran, mirip dengan di tempat lain, konsumen menjadi korban roadkill ☠ dalam melindungi kepentingan kompetisi.
Among the stated aims of the law are to Di antara negara tujuan hukum adalah untuk
- advance consumer interests muka minat konsumen
- promote economic efficiency meningkatkan efisiensi ekonomi
- protect economic security, which includes subjecting foreign acquisitions of Chinese corporations to national security review. melindungi keamanan ekonomi, yang mencakup subjecting asing dari Cina akuisisi perusahaan untuk meninjau keamanan nasional.
The law, as opposed to the antitrust laws of the United States and EU, subjects state-owned enterprises to the same regulatory measures. Hukum, yang bertentangan dengan undang-undang antitrust Amerika Serikat dan Uni Eropa, negara-mata pelajaran yang dimiliki perusahaan yang sama untuk tindakan hukum. The law would be a tool in the Chinese government's protracted struggles against internal protectionism, where (similar to their entrenched involvement in the legislative process in United States) private special interests are deeply entrenched in national, provincial and local government agencies. Hukum akan menjadi alat di Cina pemerintah larut perjuangan melawan protektionisme internal, di mana (mirip dengan berurat keterlibatan mereka dalam proses legislatif di Amerika Serikat) khusus kepentingan pribadi sangat berurat di tingkat nasional, provinsi dan pemerintah setempat.
[ edit ] Antimonopoly in Japan [Sunting] Antimonopoly di Jepang
[ 38 ] The US Government on 6 September 1945, issued a presidential directive instructing the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) to dissolve zaibatsu structures. [38] Pemerintah AS pada tanggal 6 September 1945, mengeluarkan instruksi presiden yang meminta Supreme Commander untuk bersekutu Powers (SCAP) untuk membubarkan zaibatsu struktur. Prior to the World War, Japan had no antitrust laws. Sebelum Perang Dunia, Jepang tidak memiliki undang-undang antitrust. There were seventeen zaibatsu organisations, the four largest of which had controlled approximately a fourth of all of the paid-up capital in the Japanese economy just prior to the World War. Terdapat tujuh organisasi zaibatsu, keempat terbesar yang pernah saya kira-kira keempat dari seluruh dibayar modal di Jepang ekonomi hanya sebelum Perang Dunia.
In opposition to General MacArthur's fear that zaibatsu dissolution would lead to instability, the US Departments of State and Justice sent a "Special Mission on Japanese Combines" to Japan for the implementation of a comprehensive antimonopoly framework. Bertentangan dengan MacArthur Umum dari ketakutan yang zaibatsu perceraian akan mengakibatkan ketidakstabilan, Amerika Serikat Negara Departemen Kehakiman dan mengirimkan "Khusus Misi di Jepang menggabungkan" ke Jepang untuk pelaksanaan kerangka komprehensif antimonopoly. In response, MacArthur coerced the Japanese Diet into adopting legislation known as the Antimonopoly Act (AMA), with the persuasion to them that enforcement was optional. Dalam Tanggapan, MacArthur coerced Jepang ke Diet mengadopsi undang-undang yang dikenal sebagai Undang-Undang Antimonopoly (AMA), dengan kepercayaan kepada mereka bahwa hukum adalah opsional.
McArthur's AMA, which is still Japan's fundamental competition law, generalised prohibitions against three types of anticompetitive conduct. McArthur's AMA yang masih Jepang dari dasar hukum persaingan, generalised prohibitions terhadap tiga jenis anticompetitive melakukan.
- private monopolization swasta monopolization
- unreasonable restraints of trade and keterlaluan restraints perdagangan dan
- unfair methods of competition. metode kompetisi yang tidak adil.
The AMA led to the formation of Japan's Fair Trade Commission (JFTC). AMA yang menyebabkan pembentukan Jepang Fair Trade Commission (JFTC). The weakness of the AMA was due to vagueness requiring JFTC officials to be familiar with presumptions built into American antitrust laws. Kelemahan AMA disebabkan karena ketidakjelasan memerlukan JFTC pejabat menjadi akrab dengan presumptions dibangun menjadi undang-undang antitrust Amerika. Seeing the need for stability and the growing threat of Communism, the United States backtracked on requiring Japan's enforcement of the AMA and instead encouraged the resurrection of zaibatsu structures. Melihat kebutuhan untuk stabilitas dan pertumbuhan ancaman komunisme, Amerika memerlukan backtracked di Jepang hukum dari AMA dan bukan mendorong kebangkitan zaibatsu struktur.
Japan which had grown increasingly independent of the United States in the 1950s, succumbed to pressures from Japanese business and need for recovery from economic depression due to the end of the Korean war. Jepang yang telah berkembang semakin independen dari Amerika Serikat di tahun 1950-an, succumbed tekanan dari Jepang untuk bisnis dan kebutuhan dari pemulihan ekonomi karena depresi pada akhir perang Korea. The SCAP and the US Government acquiesced to Prime Minister Yoshida's actions to enact relaxations to the AMA when occupation of Japan ended with the implementation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on 28 April 1952. The SCAP dan Pemerintah AS acquiesced ke Perdana Menteri Yoshida dari tindakan untuk menjadikan relaxations ke AMA ketika pekerjaan Jepang yang berakhir dengan pelaksanaan Perjanjian Perdamaian San Francisco pada tanggal 28 April 1952. All cartels illegal under the original AMA were effectively legalized. Semua kartel ilegal di bawah asli AMA telah disahkan secara efektif.
Amendments were made to strengthen the AMA in the 1970s due to, in part, pressures from American businesses. Perubahan dibuat untuk memperkuat AMA di tahun 1970-an akibat, sebagian, tekanan dari Amerika usaha. The oil crisis then and price fixing by Japanese oil companies further garnered public opinion in Japan against the weakness of the AMA and its lack of enforcement. The new articles introduced authorised the JFTC to dissolve or divest a company based on barriers against market-entry, lack of price benefit for consumers and unreasonable profits. The JFTC was authorised to impose fines for violations of the AMA.
However, the existence of cartels are still legalized with the following notes.
- Cartels calculate penalties beforehand and include such penalties as costs of business.
- Penalty calculations, which do not correlate with profits, present insufficient financial disincentives for businesses to collude.
- Courts in Japan lack contempt powers to ensure compliance with the JFTC's cease and desist orders.
[ edit ] International enforcement
- See also: World Trade Organization and International Competition Network
Competition law has already been substantially internationalised along the lines of the US model by nation states themselves, however the involvement of international organisations has been growing. Increasingly active at all international conferences are the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which is prone to making neo-liberal recommendations about the total application of competition law for public and private industries. [ 39 ] Chapter 5 of the post war Havana Charter contained an Antitrust code [ 40 ] but this was never incorporated into the WTO's forerunner, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947. Office of Fair Trading Director and Professor Richard Whish wrote sceptically that it "seems unlikely at the current stage of its development that the WTO will metamorphose into a global competition authority." [ 41 ] Despite that, at the ongoing Doha round of trade talks for the World Trade Organisation , discussion includes the prospect of competition law enforcement moving up to a global level. While it is incapable of enforcement itself, the newly established International Competition Network [ 42 ] (ICN) is a way for national authorities to coordinate their own enforcement activities.
It is unclear whether competition policy is a sensible role for government in developing, particularly low-income countries. In these countries the markets are usually very small and fragmented so that developing scale sufficient to raise competitiveness and engage in international markets is a major challenge. The bigger problem is however poor governance - in societies with widespread corruption, inadequate public finances, [ 43 ] and weak judiciary and oversight institutions, competition policy may become another tool for capture by vested interests - becoming in itself a barrier to entry.
[ edit ] Theory
[ edit ] Classical perspective
- See also: Classical economics
The classical perspective on competition was that certain agreements and business practice could be an unreasonable restraint on the individual liberty of tradespeople to carry on their livelihoods. Restraints were judged as permissible or not by courts as new cases appeared and in the light of changing business circumstances. Hence the courts found specific categories of agreement, specific clauses, to fall foul of their doctrine on economic fairness, and they did not contrive an overarching conception of market power. Earlier theorists like Adam Smith rejected any monopoly power on this basis.
"A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate." [ 44 ]
In The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith also pointed out the cartel problem, but did not advocate legal measures to combat them.
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." [ 45 ]
Smith also rejected the very existence of, not just dominant and abusive corporations, but corporations at all. [ 46 ] By the latter half of the nineteenth century it had become clear that large firms had become a fact of the market economy. John Stuart Mill 's approach was laid down in his treatise On Liberty (1859).
"Again, trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society... both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free, under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere. This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, qua restraint, is an evil..." [ 47 ]
[ edit ] Neo-classical synthesis
- See also: Neoclassical synthesis
After Mill, there was a shift in economic theory, which emphasised a more precise and theoretical model of competition. A simple neo-classical model of free markets holds that production and distribution of goods and services in competitive free markets maximizes social welfare . This model assumes that new firms can freely enter markets and compete with existing firms, or to use legal language, there are no barriers to entry . By this term economists mean something very specific, that competitive free markets deliver allocative , productive and dynamic efficiency. Allocative efficiency is also known as Pareto efficiency after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto and means that resources in an economy over the long run will go precisely to those who are willing and able to pay for them. Because rational producers will keep producing and selling, and buyers will keep buying up to the last marginal unit of possible output - or alternatively rational producers will be reduce their output to the margin at which buyers will buy the same amount as produced - there is no waste, the greatest number wants of the greatest number of people become satisfied and utility is perfected because resources can no longer be reallocated to make anyone better off without making someone else worse off; society has achieved allocative efficiency. Productive efficiency simply means that society is making as much as it can. Free markets are meant to reward those who work hard , and therefore those who will put society's resources towards the frontier of its possible production . [ 48 ] Dynamic efficiency refers to the idea that business which constantly competes must research, create and innovate to keep its share of consumers. This traces to Austrian-American political scientist Joseph Schumpeter 's notion that a "perennial gale of creative destruction" is ever sweeping through capitalist economies, driving enterprise at the market's mercy. [ 49 ] This led Schumpeter to argue that monopolies did not need to be broken up (as with Standard Oil ) because the next gale of economic innovation would do the same.
Contrasting with the allocatively, productively and dynamically efficient market model are monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels. When only one or a few firms exist in the market, and there is no credible threat of the entry of competing firms, prices raise above the competitive level, to either a monopolistic or oligopolistic equilibrium price. Production is also decreased, further decreasing social welfare by creating a deadweight loss . Sources of this market power are said to include the existence of externalities , barriers to entry of the market, and the free rider problem . Markets may fail to be efficient for a variety of reasons, so the exception of competition law's intervention to the rule of laissez faire is justified if government failure can be avoided. Orthodox economists fully acknowledge that perfect competition is seldom observed in the real world, and so aim for what is called " workable competition ". [ 50 ] [ 51 ] This follows the theory that if one cannot achieve the ideal, then go for the second best option [ 52 ] by using the law to tame market operation where it can.
[ edit ] Chicago School
- See also: Chicago School (economics) and Neoclassical economics
A group of economists and lawyers, who are largely associated with the University of Chicago , advocate an approach to competition law guided by the proposition that some actions that were originally considered to be anticompetitive could actually promote competition. [ 53 ] The US Supreme Court has used the Chicago School approach in several recent cases. [ 54 ] One view of the Chicago School approach to antitrust is found in United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner 's books' Antitrust Law [ 55 ] and Economic Analysis of Law [ 56 ]
Robert Bork was highly critical of court decisions on United States antitrust law in a series of law review articles and his book The Antitrust Paradox . [ 57 ] Bork argued that both the original intention of antitrust laws and economic efficiency was the pursuit only of consumer welfare, the protection of competition rather than competitors. [ 58 ] Furthermore, only a few acts should be prohibited, namely cartels that fix prices and divide markets, mergers that create monopolies, and dominant firms pricing predatorily, while allowing such practices as vertical agreements and price discrimination on the grounds that it did not harm consumers. [ 59 ] Running through the different critiques of US antitrust policy is the common theme that government interference in the operation of free markets does more harm than good. [ 60 ] "The only cure for bad theory", writes Bork, "is better theory". [ 58 ] The late Harvard Law School Professor Philip Areeda , who favours more aggressive antitrust policy, in at least one Supreme Court case challenged Robert Bork's preference for non-intervention. [ 61 ]
[ edit ] Policy developments
Anti- cartel enforcement is a key focus of competition law enforcement policy. In the US the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act 2004 raised the maximum imprisonment term for price fixing from three to ten years, and the maximum fine from $10 to $100 million. [ 62 ] In 2007 British Airways and Korean Air pleaded guilty to fixing cargo and passenger flight prices. [ 63 ]
These actions complement the private enforcement which has always been an important feature of United States antitrust law . The United States Supreme Court summarised why Congress allows punitive damages in Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal. : [ 64 ]
| “ | Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation. | ” |
In the EU , the Modernisation Regulation 1/2003 means that the European Commission is no longer the only body capable of public enforcement of European Community competition law . This was done in order to facilitate quicker resolution of competition-related inquiries. In 2005 the Commission issued a Green Paper on Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules , [ 65 ] which suggested ways of making private damages claims against cartels easier. [ 66 ]
[ edit ] Practice
| | The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject . Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page . |
[ edit ] Collusion and cartels
The core of competition policy has, since the 1980s, been the anti-price fixing cartel agenda, despite criticism by libertarians . [ 67 ] In The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith pointed out the cartel problem, but did not advocate legal measures to combat them. [ 45 ] Nowadays a far stricter approach is taken. Under EC law cartels are banned by Article 81 EC , whereas under US law the Sherman Act prohibitions of section 1. To compare, the target of competition law under the Sherman Act 1890 is every "contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy", which essentially targets anybody who has some dealing or contact with someone else. In the mean time, Art. 81 EC makes clear who the targets of competition law are in two stages with the term agreement "undertaking". This is used to describe almost anyone "engaged in an economic activity", [ 68 ] but excludes both employees, who are by their "very nature the opposite of the independent exercise of an economic or commercial activity", [ 69 ] and public services based on "solidarity" for a "social purpose". [ 70 ] Undertakings must then have formed an agreement, developed a "concerted practice", or, within an association, taken a decision. Like US antitrust, this just means all the same thing; [ 71 ] any kind of dealing or contact, or a "meeting of the minds" between parties. Covered therefore is a whole range from a strong handshaken written or verbal agreement to a supplier sending invoices with directions not to export to its retailer who gives "tacit acquiescence" to the conduct. [ 72 ]
Less of a consensus exists in the field of vertical agreements . These are agreements not between firms at the same level of production, but firms at different levels in the supply chain , for instance a supermarket and a bread producer. Recently, the United States Supreme Court has become more skeptical of antitrust cases predicated on agreements between companies that are not directly in competition with one another, such as a clothing manufacturer and a clothing retailer, while maintaining the strict prohibition against agreements that limit competition between companies at the same level of the supply chain, such as agreements between two retailers or between two distributors. Vertical agreements may still be illegal, but the burden of proving them illegal was raised by a number of recent cases from the per se illegal standard to a more demanding rule of reason standard. [ 73 ]
[ edit ] Dominance and monopoly
When firms hold large market shares, consumers risk paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than compared to competitive markets. However, the existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share firm's price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices.
First it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer." [ 74 ] Under EU law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a firm is dominant, [ 75 ] which may be rebuttable. [ 76 ] If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market". [ 77 ] Similarly as with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the particular market in which the firm and product in question is sold. Then although the lists are seldom closed, [ 78 ] certain categories of abusive conduct are usually prohibited under the country's legislation. For instance, limiting production at a shipping port by refusing to raise expenditure and update technology could be abusive. [ 79 ] Tying one product into the sale of another can be considered abuse too, being restrictive of consumer choice and depriving competitors of outlets. This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission [ 80 ] leading to an eventual fine of €497 million for including its Windows Media Player with the Microsoft Windows platform. A refusal to supply a facility which is essential for all businesses attempting to compete to use can constitute an abuse. One example was in a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents . [ 81 ] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated.
Forms of abuse relating directly to pricing include price exploitation. It is difficult to prove at what point a dominant firm's prices become "exploitative" and this category of abuse is rarely found. In one case however, a French funeral service was found to have demanded exploitative prices, and this was justified on the basis that prices of funeral services outside the region could be compared. [ 82 ] A more tricky issue is predatory pricing . This is the practice of dropping prices of a product so much that in order one's smaller competitors cannot cover their costs and fall out of business. The Chicago School (economics) considers predatory pricing to be unlikely. [ 83 ] However in France Telecom SA v. Commission [ 84 ] a broadband internet company was forced to pay €10.35 million for dropping its prices below its own production costs. It had "no interest in applying such prices except that of eliminating competitors" [ 85 ] and was being crossed subsidised to capture the lion's share of a booming market. One last category of pricing abuse is price discrimination . [ 86 ] An example of this could be offering rebates to industrial customers who export your company's sugar, but not to Irish customers who are selling their goods in the same market as you are in. [ 87 ]
- See also: Dominance (economics) and Monopoly
[ edit ] Mergers and acquisitions
A merger or acquisition involves, from a competition law perspective, the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer than before. [ 88 ] This usually means that one firm buys out the shares of another. The reasons for oversight of economic concentrations by the state are the same as the reasons to restrict firms who abuse a position of dominance, only that regulation of mergers and acquisitions attempts to deal with the problem before it arises, ex ante prevention of creating dominant firms. [ 89 ] In the United States merger regulation began under the Clayton Act, and in the European Union, under the Merger Regulation 139/2004 (known as the "ECMR" [ 90 ] ). Competition law requires that firms proposing to merge gain authorisation from the relevant government authority, or simply go ahead but face the prospect of demerger should the concentration later be found to lessen competition. The theory behind mergers is that transaction costs can be reduced compared to operating on an open market through bilateral contracts. [ 91 ] Concentrations can increase economies of scale and scope. However often firms take advantage of their increase in market power, their increased market share and decreased number of competitors, which can have a knock on effect on the deal that consumers get. Merger control is about predicting what the market might be like, not knowing and making a judgment. Hence the central provision under EU law asks whether a concentration would if it went ahead "significantly impede effective competition... in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening off a dominant position..." [ 92 ] and the corresponding provision under US antitrust states similarly,
"No person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital... of the assets of one or more persons engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where... the effect of such acquisition, of such stocks or assets, or of the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly. [ 93 ]
What amounts to a substantial lessening of, or significant impediment to competition is usually answered through empirical study. The market shares of the merging companies can be assessed and added, although this kind of analysis only gives rise to presumptions, not conclusions. [ 94 ] Something called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index is used to calculate the "density" of the market, or what concentration exists. Aside from the maths, it is important to consider the product in question and the rate of technical innovation in the market. [ 95 ] A further problem of collective dominance, or oligopoly through "economic links" [ 96 ] can arise, whereby the new market becomes more conducive to collusion . It is relevant how transparent a market is, because a more concentrated structure could mean firms can coordinate their behaviour more easily, whether firms can deploy deterrants and whether firms are safe from a reaction by their competitors and consumers. [ 97 ] The entry of new firms to the market, and any barriers that they might encounter should be considered. [ 98 ] If firms are shown to be creating an uncompetitive concentration, in the US they can still argue that they create efficiencies enough to outweigh any detriment, and similar reference to "technical and economic progress" is mentioned in Art. 2 of the ECMR. [ 99 ] Another defence might be that a firm which is being taken over is about to fail or go insolvent, and taking it over leaves a no less competitive state than what would happen anyway. [ 100 ] Mergers vertically in the market are rarely of concern, although in AOL/Time Warner [ 101 ] the European Commission required that a joint venture with a competitor Bertelsmann be ceased beforehand. The EU authorities have also focussed lately on the effect of conglomerate mergers , where companies acquire a large portfolio of related products, though without necessarily dominant shares in any individual market. [ 102 ]
[ edit ] Public sector regulation
- See also: American Telephone & Telegraph , Kingsbury Commitment , Hush-a-Phone v. FCC , and Bell System divestiture
Public sector industries, or industries which are by their nature providing a public service, are involved in competition law in many ways similar to private companies. Under EC law, Articles 86 and 87 create exceptions for the assured achievement of public sector service provision. Many industries, such as railways, telecommunications, electricity, gas, water and media have their own independent sector regulators. These government agencies are charged with ensuring that private providers carry out certain public service duties in line of social welfare goals. For instance, an electricity company may not be allowed to disconnect someone's supply merely because they have not paid their bills up to date, because that could leave a person in the dark and cold just because they are poor. Instead the electricity company would have to give the person a number of warnings and offer assistance until government welfare support kicks in. [ 103 ]
[ edit ] See also [Sunting] Lihat juga
- Thurman Arnold
- Competition policy
- Consumer protection
- List of countries' copyright length
- SSNIP
- Relevant market
- European Community competition law
- Irish Competition law
- Resale price maintenance
[ edit ] Notes
- ^ see, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 's Regulation and Sectors page.
- ^ Bork (1993), p. 56
- ^ This is Julius Caesar's time according to Babled in De La Cure Annone chez le Romains
- ^ a b Wilberforce (1966) p.20
- ^ Wilberforce (1966) p.22
- ^ a b c Wilberforce (1966) p.21
- ^ Pollock and Maitland , History of English Law Vol. II, 453
- ^ 51 & 52 Hen. 3, Stat. 1
- ^ 51 & 52 Hen. 3, Stat. 6
- ^ Wilberforce (1966) p.23
- ^ 23 Edw. 3.
- ^ 27 Edw. 3, Stat. 2, c. 25
- ^ 25 Hen. 8, c. 2.
- ^ according to William Searle Holdsworth , 4 Holdsworth, 3rd ed., Chap. 4 p. 346
- ^ (1602) 11 Co. Rep. 84b
- ^ eg one John Manley paid £10,000 pa from 1654 to the Crown for a tender on the "postage of letters both inland and foreign" Wilberforce (1966) p. 18
- ^ (1685) 10 St. Tr. 371
- ^ 9 Anne, c. 30
- ^ Adam Smith, An Enquiry into the Wealth of Nations (1776)
- ^ "the modern common law of England [has] passed directly into the legislation and thereafter into the judge-made law of the United States." Wilberforce (1966) p.7
- ^ Nordenfelt v. Maxim, Nordenfelt Gun Co. [1894] AC 535
- ^ (1414) 2 Hen. 5, 5 Pl. 26
- ^ Rogers v. Parry (1613) 2 Bulstr. 136
- ^ Broad v. Jolyffe (1620) Cro. Jac. 596
- ^ Mitchell v. Reynolds (1711) 1 P.Wms. 181
- ^ Roussillon v. Roussillon (1880) 14 Ch. D. 351
- ^ Nordenfelt v. Maxim, Nordenfelt Gun Co. [1894] AC 535
- ^ Mason v. The Provident Supply and Clothing Co. [1913] AC 724
- ^ Standard Oil of New Jersey v. United States (1911) 221 US 1
- ^ eg Under King Edward VI in 1552, 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 14
- ^ Ernest Gellhorn. William E. Kovacic. Stephen Calkins. Antitrust Law And Economics In A Nutshell . West Group Publishing. 2004. ISBN 0314257233 p. 105
- ^ Harry First. Eleanor M. Fox. Robert Pitofsky. Revitalizing Antitrust in Its Second Century . Greenwood Publishing Group. 1991. ISBN 0899304397 p. xvii, 1
- ^ Cambridge University Press ISBN 978-0-521-81788-2 - ANTITRUST AND GLOBAL CAPITALISM IN AMERICA, JAPAN, EUROPE, AND AUSTRALIA, 1930–2004 - by Tony A. Freyer
- ^ see Article 3(g) and Article 4(1) of the Treaty of the European Community
- ^ Whish (2003) p.188 ff.; Michelin v. Commission [1983] ECR 3461 (C 322/81) para 57
- ^ " Nathan Bush, China Business Review: Chinese Competition Policy ".
- ^ " Anu Bradfore, Huffington Post: Chinese Antitrust Law: The New Face of Protectionism? ".
- ^ Struggling to teethe: Japan's antitrust enforcement regime, in Law and Policy in International Business, Summer 2001 by Fry, James D
- ^ see, Tony Prosser, The Limits of Competition Law (2005) ch.1
- ^ see a speech by Wood, The Internationalisation of Antitrust Law: Options for the Future 3 February 1995 , at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/future.txt
- ^ Whish (2003) p.448
- ^ see, http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/
- ^ So that paying off factions to keep peace and stability has to be don off-budget requiring 'grand corruption': see Douglass North et al 2006
- ^ Smith (1776) Book I, Chapter 7, para 26
- ^ a b Smith (1776) Book I, Chapter 10 , para 82
- ^ Smith (1776) Book V, Chapter 1, para 107
- ^ Mill (1859) Chapter V, para 4
- ^ for one of the opposite views, see Kenneth Galbraith , The New Industrial State (1967)
- ^ Joseph Schumpeter , The Process of Creative Destruction (1942)
- ^ Whish (2003), p. 14.
- ^ Clark, John M. (1940). "Towards a Concept of Workable Competition". American Economic Review 30 : 241–256.
- ^ cf Lipsey, RG; Lancaster, Kelvin (1956). "The General Theory of Second Best". Review of Economic Studies 24 (1): 11–32. doi : .
- ^ Hovenkamp, Herbert (1985). "Antitrust Policy after Chicago". Michigan Law Review 84 (2): 213–284. doi : .
- ^ Continental TV, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc. , ; Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. , ; National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. , ; Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan , ; State Oil Co. v. Khan , ; Verizon v. Trinko , ; Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. , 551 US ___ (2007).
- ^ Posner, R. (2001). Antitrust Law (2nd edition ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226675769 .
- ^ Posner, R. (2007). Economic Analysis of Law (7th edition ed.). Austin, TX: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. ISBN 9780735563544 .
- ^ Bork, Robert H. (1978). The Antitrust Paradox . New York: Free Press. ISBN 0465003699 .
- ^ a b Bork (1978), p. 405.
- ^ Bork (1978), p. 406.
- ^ Easterbrook, Frank (1984). "The Limits of Antitrust". Texas Law Review 63 : 1. ISSN 00404411 .
- ^ Brooke Group v. Williamson , .
- ^ see generally, Pate (2004) at USDOJ
- ^ see, USDOJ Antitrust's press release and the court filing
- ^ Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California , , 262.
- ^ Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules {SEC(2005) 1732} /* COM/2005/0672
- ^ see FAQ on the Green paper here
- ^ see, Michael E. DeBow (2007) What's Wrong with Price Fixing: Responding to the New Critics of Antitrust , published by the Cato Institute
- ^ Hoefner v Macroton GmbH [1991]
- ^ per AG Jacobs, Albany International BV [1999]
- ^ FENIN v. Commission [2004]
- ^ per AG Reischl, Van Landweyck [1980] there is no need to distinguish an agreement from a concerted practice, because they are merely convenient labels
- ^ Sandoz Prodotti Farmaceutica SpA v. Commission [1990]
- ^ See Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc, v. PSKS, Inc., 551 US ____ (2007)
- ^ C-27/76 United Brands Continental BV v. Commission [1978] ECR 207
- ^ C-85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v. Commission [1979] ECR 461
- ^ AKZO [1991]
- ^ Michelin [1983]
- ^ Continental Can [1973]
- ^ Art. 82 (b) Porto di Genova [1991]
- ^ Case T-201/04 Microsoft v. Commission Order, 22 December 2004
- ^ Commercial Solvents [1974]
- ^ C-30/87 Corinne Bodson v. SA Pompes funèbres des régions libérées [1987] ECR 2479
- ^ see, eg Posner (1998) p.332; "While it is possible to imagine cases in which predatory pricing would be a rational stragy, it should be apparent by now why confirmed cases of it are rare."
- ^ Case T-340/03 France Telecom SA v. Commission
- ^ AKZO [1991] para 71
- ^ in the EU under Article 82(2)c)
- ^ Irish Sugar [1999]
- ^ Under EC law, a concentration is where a "change of control on a lasting basis results from (a) the merger of two or more previously independent undertakings... (b) the acquisition... if direct or indirect control of the whole or parts of one or more other undertakings." Art. 3(1), Regulation 139/2004, the European Community Merger Regulation
- ^ In the case of [T-102/96] Gencor Ltd v. Commission [1999] ECR II-753 the EU Court of First Instance wrote merger control is there "to avoid the etablishment of market structures which may create or strengthen a dominant position and not need to control directly possible abuses of dominant positions"
- ^ The authority for the Commission to pass this regulation is found under Art. 83 TEC
- ^ Coase, Ronald H. (November 1937). " The Nature of the Firm " (PDF). Economica 4 (16): 386–405. doi : . http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEcoIndus/SupportsdeCours/COASE.pdf . Retrieved on 10 February 2007 .
- ^ Art. 2(3) Reg. 129/2005
- ^ Clayton Act Section 7, codified at
- ^ see, for instance para 17, Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers (2004/C 31/03)
- ^ C-68/94 France v. Commission [1998] ECR I-1375, para. 219
- ^ Italian Flat Glass [1992] ECR ii-1403
- ^ T-342/99 Airtours plc v. Commission [2002] ECR II-2585, para 62
- ^ Mannesmann, Vallourec and Ilva [1994] CMLR 529, OJ L102 21 April 1994
- ^ see the argument put forth in Hovenkamp H (1999) Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and Its Practice , 2nd Ed, West Group, St. Paul, Minnesota. Unlike the authorities however, the courts take a dim view of the efficiencies defence.
- ^ Kali und Salz AG v. Commission [1975] ECR 499
- ^ Time Warner/AOL [2002] 4 CMLR 454, OJ L268
- ^ eg Guinness/Grand Metropolitan [1997] 5 CMLR 760, OJ L288; Many in the US disapprove of this approach, see WJ Kolasky, Conglomerate Mergers and Range Effects: It’sa long way from Chicago to Brussels 9 November 2001, Address before George Mason University Symposium Washington, DC.
- ^ this is the general position in the UK
[ edit ] References [Sunting] Referensi
- Bork, Robert H. (1978) The Antitrust Paradox , New York Free Press ISBN 0465003699
- Bork, Robert H. (1993). The Antitrust Paradox (second edition). New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-02-904456-1 .
- Friedman, Milton (1999) The Business Community's Suicidal Impulse
- Galbraith Kenneth (1967) The New Industrial State
- Mill, John Stuart (1859) On Liberty online at the Library of Economics and Liberty
- Posner, Richard (2001) Antitrust Law , 2nd ed., ISBN 9780226675763
- Posner, Richard (2007) Economic Analysis of Law 7th ed., ISBN 9780735563544
- Prosser, Tony (2005) The Limits of Competition Law , ch.1
- Schumpeter, Joseph (1942) The Process of Creative Destruction
- Smith, Adam (1776) An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations online from the Adam Smith Institute
- Wilberforce, Richard , Alan Campbell and Neil Elles (1966) The Law of Restrictive Practices and Monopolies , 2nd edition, London: Sweet and Maxwell LCCN 66-070116
- Whish, Richard (2003) Competition Law , 5th Ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths
[ edit ] Further reading [Sunting] Lebih lanjut membaca
- Elhauge, Einer; Geradin, Damien (2007) Global Competition Law and Economics , ISBN 1841134651
- Faull, Jonathan; Nikpay, Ali (eds) (2007) "Faull & Nikpay : The EC Law of Competition"; ISBN-13: 978-0199269297
- Georg Erber and Stefan Kooths, Windows Vista: Securing Itself against Competition? , in: DIW Weekly Report, 2/2007, Vol.3, 7-14.
- Keith N. Hylton et al., Antitrust World Reports , available at http://www.antitrustworldwiki.com
- Competition Policy International (various issues), ISSN 1554-6853, available at http://www.globalcompetitionpolicy.org
[ edit ] External links [Sunting] Pranala luar
- International
- International Competition Network
- Global Competition Forum
- Global Competition Policy
- OECD Competition Home Page
- Domestic
- Criticism
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment