Chillin'Competition

Relaxing whilst doing Competition Law is not an Oxymoron

Pay Tribute

with 5 comments

A while ago, Prof. I. Goavere (College of Europe) invited me to write a short text for a liber amicorum in honour for a god of EU law, Prof. J. Bourgeois.

My paper is entitled: “Parallel Trade: Econ-oclast Thoughts on a Dogma of EU Competition Law“. Alfonso – and his clients – are fans of this paper :).

The  book has now been published. It is entitled “Trade and competition in the EU and beyond”  and appears at E. Elgar.

I attach hereafter the flyer.

Flyer Trade and Competition

Written by Nicolas Petit

16 September 2011 at 8:57 am

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. A very interesting point of view which sheds light on the lack of sound economics while dealing with the unstable theme of PT.

    By the way, it reminds me that since the GSK (Spain) judgment, there is still no news from the Commission reverting to the art.101(3) exemption issue that was at stake.

    Do you know by any chance if this last point is going to come up in an official statement one day ? Or is it a too well burried issue ?

    PM

    16 September 2011 at 11:00 am

  2. As you can see, this is harmonious co-blogging: yesterday I wrote about CPI (the Editorial Board of which features a certain Nicolas Petit) and now I see that he writes a post advertising a paper that goes against my position (as well as to that of my clients).

    I have to admit that Nico´s nonsense about parallel trade is, as usual, well written.. Perhaps I should write something explaining why his paper is wrong 😉

    Alfonso Lamadrid

    16 September 2011 at 11:04 am

  3. The parallel trade is a truly problematic area of research..I have somehow the feeling that the truth is somewhere in between. I guess that a dogmatic treatment of parallel trade based on the aim of “market integration” cannot seriously stand any longer. Although there is no solid and unquestionable proof that the traditional position on PT should diametrically change, I suppose there is enough of it, as we speak, to make the treatment more flexible..
    Still, I’d be delighted to trigger a blog discussion between its co-authors around this topic 🙂

    PM

    20 September 2011 at 12:24 pm

  4. Thanks for the comment, PM. This certainly is a very interesting topic. Rest assured that I will (whenever I have the time) explain why my co-author has, for once, got it wrong 🙂

    Alfonso Lamadrid

    20 September 2011 at 4:22 pm

  5. Pal, you’d better start quick and leave some space for it in the evenings, cos’ you got 25 pages to debunk :):):).

    Nicolas Petit

    21 September 2011 at 7:45 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: