Entradas
"The next area I would like to discuss is one where the Guidelines appear to inaccurately describe the Agencies' enforcement policy. As the Merger Challenges Data that I referred to earlier in this talk indicate, it is relatively rare for the Agencies to challenge mergers that will lead to HHI concentration levels below 1,800. (12) Yet the Guidelines indicate that such mergers "potentially raise significant competitive concerns." (13) Similarly, the Guidelines suggest that a 100 point increase in an HHI concentration level raises competitive concerns. (14)In actual practice, however, the Agencies have only infrequently challenged mergers unless they increase concentration several times that much. (15)
More broadly, our panelists have generally confirmed that the Guidelines overstate the importance of HHIs in merger analysis. It will not surprise you that HHIs have been the focus of neither a party presentation nor a staff recommendation since I've been the Assistant Attorney General. That reality reflects the current state of economic thinking, where HHI levels are given a far less prominent place as a predictive tool for assessing competitive effects than the one suggested by the current Guidelines. In that vein, I note that, while many panelists have noted their usefulness as a tool for assessing likely competitive effects, none has maintained that HHIs should be the key driver of enforcement decisions.
It is thus relatively clear that the HHI thresholds set forth in the Guidelines no longer capture agency practice or economic learning about the kinds of mergers that are most likely to lead to consumer harm. Revising the HHI thresholds to express accurately how the Agencies use HHIs seems not just appropriate but also necessary to correct what has become an affirmative misstatement at this point."
miércoles, 27 de enero de 2010
Apuntes sobre la intervención de C. A. Varney en el "workshop" sobre la revisión de las Guías de integraciones horizontales (II)
Apuntes sobre la intervención de C. A. Varney en el "workshop" sobre la revisión de las Guías de integraciones horizontales
"We have learned since September [Nota: hace alusión a la crisis de los bancos] that the present generation of economists has not figured out how the economy works. The vast majority of them were blindsided by the housing bubble and the ensuing banking crisis; and misjudged the gravity of the economic downturn that resulted; and were perplexed by the inability of orthodox monetary policy administered by the Federal Reserve to prevent such a steep downturn; and could not agree on what, if anything, the government should do to halt it and put the economy on the road to recovery." (...)
"Baffled by the profession's disarray, I decided I had better read The General Theory. Having done so, I have concluded that, despite its antiquity, it is the best guide we have to the crisis." (...)
"The dominant conception of economics today, and one that has guided my own academic work in the economics of law, is that economics is the study of rational choice. People are assumed to make rational decisions across the entire range of human choice, including but not limited to market transactions, by employing a form (usually truncated and informal) of cost-benefit analysis. The older view was that economics is the study of the economy, employing whatever assumptions seem realistic and whatever analytical methods come to hand. Keynes wanted to be realistic about decision-making rather than explore how far an economist could get by assuming that people really do base decisions on some approximation to cost-benefit analysis." (...)
"So I will let a contrite Gregory Mankiw, writing in November 2008 in The New York Times, amid a collapsing economy, have the last word: "If you were going to turn to only one economist to understand the problems facing the economy, there is little doubt that the economist would be John Maynard Keynes. Although Keynes died more than a half-century ago, his diagnosis of recessions and depressions remains the foundation of modern macroeconomics. His insights go a long way toward explaining the challenges we now confront. . . . Keynes wrote, ‘Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slave of some defunct economist.' In 2008, no defunct economist is more prominent than Keynes himself."
Reunión CEDEC: “La experiencia de El Salvador en la aplicación de la Ley de Competencia ”
martes, 26 de enero de 2010
Proyecto de decreto sobre Abogacía de la Competencia (Colombia)
El Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo de Colombia ha puesto a disposición del público un proyecto de decreto que reglamenta el artículo 7 de la Ley 1340 de 2009 que se refiere la denominada "abogacía de la competencia". El proyecto de decreto "Por el cual se reglamenta el artículo 7 de la ley 1340 de 2009" está pues en consulta pública y los comentarios deben enviarse hasta el 8 de febrero de 2010, a los siguientes correos electrónicos: portiz@mincomercio.gov.co y jrodriguez@mincomercio.gov.co.
No he tenido tiempo de revisar a fondo el proyecto, pero lo que sí quiero anotar por ahora es que el artículo 7 de la nueva ley es uno de los artículos más importantes y que consagra una institución muy novedosa en Colombia.
lunes, 25 de enero de 2010
Diplomado en Derecho y Política de la Competencia (U. Chile)
domingo, 24 de enero de 2010
Conferencia sobre el el acuerdo de transacción Google Books: un análisis desde el punto de vista del antitrust y los IPs
"Given the proper framing, the right question to ask is: Does the settlement lower consumer welfare from what it would be without a settlement? (...) So the right question to ask about the Google books settlement is not whether one could imagine some alternative settlement that might benefit consumers and the public interest even more than the actual settlement. Rather, the right question is whether the settlement leaves consumers and the public interest worse off than they would be in the but‐for world without the settlement, and there is simply no reason to think it does."
PROGRAMME
13:45 – 14:00 Registration and Coffee
14:00 – 14:10 Welcoming Remarks
Nicolas Petit, Lecturer, ULg, Co-director, IEJE
14:10 – 14:30 The Google Book Settlement: Towards a True Digital Library or an Online
Billboard?
Alain Strowel, Professor, FUSL and ULg, Attorney
14:30 – 15:00 How to Fix the Google Book Settlement?
James Grimmelmann, Associate Professor of Law, New York Law School
15:00 – 15:30 How Fair is the Google Book Settlement?
Pamela Samuelson, Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley
(videoconference)
15:30 – 16:00 Discussion
16:00 – 16:30 Coffee Break
CHAIR Alain Strowel, Professor, FUSL and ULg, attorney
16:30 – 16:45 The View of Google
Philippe Colombet, Head of Google Books France [TBC]
16:45 – 17:00 The View of the European Commission
Grazyna Piesiewicz-Stepniewska, European Commission, DG Information
Society
17:00 – 17:15 The View of the Libraries
Harald Mueller, Librarian, Max Planck Institute (Heidelberg), speaking for the
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)
17:15 – 17:30 The View of the Publishers
Kurt Van Damme, Association of Flemish Publishers
17:30 – 17:45 The View from a Competition Lawyer
Ian Forrester, Partner, White & Case LLP
17:45 – 18:15 Roundtable Discussion and Conclusions by the Chair"
domingo, 17 de enero de 2010
Aumentan umbrales de información de integraciones empresariales a US$ 40 MM en Colombia
miércoles, 13 de enero de 2010
Nuevas guías de la Comisión Europea sobre el procedimiento antimonopolio
Las guías publicadas son las siguientes:
1. Mejores prácticas para los procedimientos antimonopolio ("Best Practices for antitrust proceedings")
2. Directrices sobre los consultores auditores ("Guidance on the role of the Hearing Officers in the context of antitrust proceedings")
3. Mejores prácticas para la presentación de pruebas económicas (Best Practices for the submission of economic evidence")
Además de ser de gran utilidad para los investigados por la Comisión, creo que estas guías resultarán de gran ayuda e ilustración para quienes no están familiarizados con el procedimiento antimonopolio de la Unión Europea.
Aunque ya son aplicadas por la Comisión desde el 6 de enero, es posible enviar comentarios hasta el próximo 3 de marzo.
martes, 12 de enero de 2010
MinComercio publica proyecto de decreto reglamentario sobre beneficios por colaboración
lunes, 11 de enero de 2010
Becas para doctorados en competencia e innovación del Max Planck Institute
Abajo transcribo la información pertinente sobre el programa de doctorado en competencia e innovación ofrecido por el Max Planck Institute junto con dos universidades localizadas en Munich:
MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, COMPETITION AND TAX LAW, IMPRS FOR COMPETITION AND INNOVATION - LEGAL AND ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS (IMPRS-CI)
Doctoral Fellowship
The IMPRS-CI invites applications for a three-year doctoral programme in interdisciplinary research at the interface of law, business administration and economics in the area of competition and intellectual property law.
ABOUT THE IMPRS-CI:
The IMPRS-CI is a doctoral programme jointly offered by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, the Department of Economics, the Munich School of Management and the Faculty of Law of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich. It focuses on the study of the nexuses between patent law and innovation, copyright law and creativity and market transparency and competition.
FELLOWSHIP DESCRIPTION:
The IMPRS-CI offers participants an outstanding interdisciplinary three year doctoral programme in English with courses in law, economics and business administration.
In accordance with their interests and the concrete topic of their theses, students will deepen their disciplinary and cross-disciplinary knowledge and expertise. Students enjoy close supervision by world-renowned lawyers and economists in a competitive, yet collaborative, environment rich in interaction with other students, post-docs and academics. Each participant will be awarded a scholarship to cover his/her living expenses. Students are granted a fully equipped shared office, full access to the libraries and research facilities of the participating institutes and university departments and research funds to conduct their projects.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Location: Munich, Germany
Total Number of Students: 8 per year
Application Deadline: 31 March 2010
Programme Start: October 2010
FELLOWSHIP QUALIFICATIONS:
The IMPRS-CI doctoral programme is open to excellent
applicants holding the equivalent of a German diploma,
Master's degree or state examination in law, economics,
business administration or management. Applicants will also be required to meet all entry criteria for the respective doctoral programmes specified by the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich.
APPLICATION PROCEDURE:
The selection process is competitive: Applicants will be assessed against other international applicants and will be selected in order of merit. Short-listed candidates are invited to an interview in Munich. For further details and information about admissions, please visit our website:
CONTACT: Prof. Reto M. Hilty, Director
Max Planck Institute for Intellectual
Property, Competition and Tax Law
Marstallplatz 1
D-80539 Munich, Germany
Tel: +49 89 242 46 402
Email: imprs@imprs-ci.ip.mpg.de
CADE ganha caso na Justiça sobre cláusulas de não concorrência
A princípio, a maioria das empresas não discutia estas limitações perante a Justiça. Ao poucos, tem havido alguns casos que atacam decisões do CADE limitadoras das cláusulas de não concorrência.
Recentemente, a 8ª Vara da Seção Judiciária do Distrito Federal confirmou em sentença a decisão do CADE que impôs limites à cláusula de não concorrência celebrada entre Votorantim Investimentos Industriais Ltda e Sucorrico S/A. Ambas empresas contestaram a vedação a renovação do prazo de cinco ano, mas não obtiveram êxito. A decisão, da qual cabe recurso, pode ser acessada aqui.
lunes, 4 de enero de 2010
Conferencia de ASCOLA sobre los objetivos de las normas de competencia
Para empezar el año con mucha energía, les informo sobre una conferencia que se llevará a cabo en la ciudad de Bonn, entre el 27 y 29 de mayo. El evento es organizado por la Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA).
Para quienes le interese participar como conferencistas, el plazo máximo para la remisión de una propuesta de 3 páginas vence el viernes 8 de enero. Me parece interesante que uno de los sub-temas propuestos sea si el derecho de la competencia debe tener objetivos particulares para países en desarrollo.
También destaco que la ASCOLA ofrece un premio para el mejor ensayo presentado por un investigador joven (léase menor de 35 años) y que todos los ensayos serán publicados en por la editorial Edward Elgar.
Abajo transcribo la información pertinente:
"To the Members of ASCOLA
5th ASCOLA Conference, Bonn, 27-29 May 2010
December 2009
The 5th ASCOLA Conference will be held in Bonn on 27-29 May 2010. The general topic will be “Goals of Competition Law”
Discussions at earlier ASCOLA Conferences have revealed a need for a profound debate on the normative foundations of competition law. Accordingly, the General Assembly decided at the Zürich Conference to dedicate a conference to this issue to be held in Bonn.
(1) Forms of active participation
Similar to the approach taken by the organisers of this year’s Washington conference, there will be two groups of active participants – speakers and commentators. The speakers will be identified by a call for papers, and, if needed, will be reimbursed for their travel expenses. Commentators will only be requested to make short comments on the speakers’ papers. ASCOLA will not reimburse the commentators. But being on the programme may be helpful to the commentators to finance their trip to Bonn through their home institutions or through other sources.
(2) On the topics to be covered
The conference will address the “Goals of Competition Law” in two parts:
Part I: “The normative foundations of competition law”
Part I aims at developing a more common understanding of the normative foundations of competition law. It is suggested that we take a comparative approach. Contributors are there- fore kindly requested to take account of the legal situation in one (preferably: their “own”) or a few jurisdiction(s). Papers could, for instance, focus on the following questions:
- Does competition law serve one or more than one goal? What is/are this/these goal/s?
- If it serves more than one goal, how are these goals inter-related?
- Is competition an open concept, or is it defined by certain (market) results?
- If it is an open concept, what are the prerequisites of competition?
- When and in which way do aims such as efficiency and (consumer) welfare come into play? If consumer welfare (or consumer benefit) is an issue, who will be considered to be a consumer?
- If efficiency is an issue, in which way is it assessed (short term allocative efficiency or long term assessment, including dynamic efficiencies)?
- Are competitors protected in their own right?
If you are considering preparing a paper for Session I, you may find it helpful to have a look at the report on the objectives of unilateral conduct rules prepared by the International Com- petition Network, which is the result of considerable comparative work. The report can be accessed at
http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/unilateral_conduct/Objectives %20of%20Unilateral%20Conduct%20May%2007.pdf
The goal of the discussion in the framework of part I is to arrive at some common understanding with respect to an underlying concept of competition. It is hoped to reach some conclusions as to the ingredients or ‘living conditions’ of such competition.
Session II: “Selected issues related to the goals of competition law”
Session II will cover selected issues that are related to the general theme of the goals of com- petition law. Here contributors are invited not to report from the perspective of one particular jurisdiction, but to take a broader view. They may, if they wish, develop comparative analyses of various legal systems. They may also follow an interdisciplinary approach such as an economic, historical or philosophical analysis of law.
Suggested topics for Session II include:
- Ways to recognise other goals (in particular: ‘non-economic’ goals) when applying competition law
- The relationship between competition law (in the narrow sense of antitrust law) and the law of unfair competition
- To what extent is buyer power an issue for competition law?
- Is ‘too big to fail’ an issue for competition law?
- Are there special goals of competition law in the media industry?
- Are there particular goals for competition law in developing countries?
You are kindly invited to suggest other issues for Session II. If you offer to contribute to Session II, please indicate which methodology you intend to apply.
(3) Information for potential speakers – Call for papers
Step 1: If you want to become a speaker to the conference, please return the attached form [para obtener el formato, escribirle a Delia Zirilli: delia.zirilli@ip.mpg.de] by 8 January 2010, accompanied by an abstract of no more than three pages setting out the main points of the paper you would like to present. If you offer to contribute to session II, please also indicate which methodology you intend to apply.
Step 2: A committee installed by the ASCOLA Executive Board will select the papers for presentation at the Bonn conference and invite the speakers for submission of a full paper. The speakers are kindly requested to submit their papers electronically by the 30 April 2010 so as to enable the commentators to prepare for the conference.
Note that you do not have to be a member of ASCOLA in order to become a speaker.
(4) Information for potential commentators
If you consider becoming a commentator, you are also kindly requested to use the attached form.
(5) ASCOLA Young Researcher Award
For the first time, ASCOLA will grant the ASCOLA Young Researcher Award to the best papers submitted by a young researcher. The person to whom the award will be granted will be identified by the committee that selects the papers for the conference and will act as a speaker at the conference.
The following persons qualify for the award:
35 years or younger at the time of the conference
ASCOLA membership not required
As a member of ASCOLA, you are kindly requested to spread the news on this award to young researchers and try to convince promising young researchers to take part in the process by handing in the attached form with a declaration that they are willing to compete for the award.
The committee may decide to grant the award to more than one contributor; it may also decide not to grant the award.
(6) Publication
All the papers and comments will be published in the ASCOLA series with Edward Elgar. Commentators will have the possibility to expand more toward “stand-alone” articles.
Daniel Zimmer,
Member of the ASCOLA Executive Board, Organiser of the conference
Josef Drexl
Chair of ASCOLA"
