Topic
Monopoly
203 published works
The Antitrust Attorney Blog
Does a Refusal to Deal With a Competitor Create Antitrust Liability?
By Bona Law PC
Author: Jarod Bona Yes, in certain narrow circumstances, refusing to do business with a competitor violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which regulates monopolies, attempts at monopoly, and exclusionary…
The Right Coast
The Medieval University Monopoly | History Today
From 1334 onwards, graduates of Oxford and Cambridge were required to swear an oath that they would not give lectures outside these two English universities. It was a prohibition occasioned…
The Right Coast
Could the Steward Health v. BCBS Trial Revitalize Monopolization Law? –
In a little-noticed decision a few weeks ago, a veteran federal judge in Rhode Island sent a remarkable antitrust case to trial. Steward Health v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode…
The Right Coast
Could the Steward Health v. BCBS Trial Revitalize Monopolization Law? –
In a little-noticed decision a few weeks ago, a veteran federal judge in Rhode Island sent a remarkable antitrust case to trial. Steward Health v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode…
The Right Coast
Trump is right about Amazon
Amazon is much too big. Its exponential growth has been greatly aided by its avoidance of taxes. And its business model has done enormous damage to retail outlets across the…
Washington Energy Report
FERC Finds Idaho Power Lacks Market Power in Its Own BAA and Terminates FPA Section 206 Proceeding
By Adrienne Thompson, Christopher Zentz
On March 19, 2018, FERC issued an order terminating its proceeding under section 206 of the Federal Power Act (“FPA”), accepting Idaho Power Company’s (“Idaho Power”) updated market power analysis,…
China Law Insight
Australian Competition Law Reform Now in Force
By King & Wood
By Trish Henry, Melissa Monks and James Gould King & Wood Mallesons' Sydney office After four years of consultation and debate, some of the most significant reforms to Australia’s competition…
China Law Insight
澳大利亚竞争法修正条款正式生效
By King & Wood
作者：Trish Henry、Melissa Monks和James Gould 金杜律师事务所悉尼办公室 历经四年的协商和讨论，澳大利亚竞争法重大修正条款于11月6日起正式生效。 2013年9月澳大利亚政府宣布对本国竞争法进行“彻底性”审查，并发布《竞争政策审查报告》（即通常所称的《哈珀竞争政策审查报告》，以审查小组主席伊恩·哈珀命名），由此开启了澳大利亚竞争法改革的进程。《2017年竞争和消费者修正法案（竞争政策审查）》及《2017年竞争和消费者修正法案（滥用市场支配力）》将这一进程推向了高潮。 您需要了解什么？ 重大修正条款为： 1. 第46条——滥用市场支配力 禁止拥有重大市场支配力的公司在下列市场进行以实质性削弱市场竞争为目的、或可能产生上述效果的活动： 在其拥有重大支配力的市场上；或 其直接或间接提供或获得（或可能提供或获得）产品或服务的任何其他市场。 议会和商界此前就修正案展开了激烈辩论，修正案的出台意味着澳大利亚竞争和消费者委员会（ACCC）（或其他寻求强制执行第46条的相关方）不再需要证明相关公司利用其在市场上的重大支配力牟取利益。不论其根本目的为何，如其行为对市场造成不利影响，即可被认定为违反第46条。 ACCC出台了《滥用市场支配力暂行准则》，并在2017年11月24日前向各方征求意见。 2. 第45条——一致行动（及价格信号） 修正第45条，引入新规定，禁止公司开展以实质性削弱市场竞争为目的、产生上述效果或可能产生上述效果的一致行动。 《竞争政策审查法案》并未定义“一致行动”。 然而，《法案解释性备忘录》将一致行动阐释为“两个或多个公司（或个人）之间任何形式的合作或可能达成合作的行为，若该等行为以合作或可能以合作取代竞争”。 ACCC近日发布《一致行动暂行准则》，并在2017年11月24日前向各方征求意见。 鉴于新规禁止反竞争的一致行动，仅适用于银行业且从未执行的价格信号规定已被废除。 3. 第47条——强制与第三方交易 现在仅禁止以实质性削弱市场竞争为目的、产生上述效果或可能产生上述效果的强制与第三方交易的行为，不再需要通知ACCC非反竞争的借助技术手段强制与第三方交易的行为。这一改变使澳大利亚法规与美国、加拿大、欧盟和新西兰等国接轨，这些国家均根据竞争测试评估是否属于强制与第三方交易。 4. 并购评估 在先前的法律框架下，ACCC仅会批准那些其认为不会实质性削弱市场竞争的并购交易。现在ACCC可批准其认为会带来纯公共利益（原本仅由澳洲竞争事务仲裁庭认定）的并购项目。同时，ACCC评估和批准并购的方法也有一些程序上的改变。 5.…
PrawfsBlawg
Bamberger & Lobel, Platform Market Power
Main Tuesday, November 28, 2017Bamberger & Lobel, Platform Market PowerKenneth Bamberger (Berkeley) and I just posted our new article on SSRN- Platform Market Power. Over at Legal Theory Blog, Larry…
The Brand Protection Blog
Managing your products when a patent expires – how good brand management can maintain product and brand awareness, and build market share
The Australian Government's recently expressed interest in cracking down on misuses of market power may have left some patent holders with concerns about the proposed amendments to the Competition and…