Author Archive
Subversive Readings?
In reaction to one of my recent papers, a very good friend said that I was a “neo-chicagoan” (friends can be tough…).
This morning, I came accross a masterpiece of NON-chicagoan scholarship (L. Kaplow, “Antitrust, Law & Economics and the Courts”, (1987) Vol. 50, 4, Law and Contemporary Problems, 181). I thought I should share with you several powerful quotes, with which I fully concur.
“The price theory widely hailed by the Chicago School as its heart and soul, although a useful starting point, is in fact the earliest and simplest for of economic analysis of industry” p.189
“Antitrust law is necessarily based on the contrary assumption that courts at times can punish detrimental practices better than markets will” P.192
“One of the most widely noted shortcomings of Chicago School antitrust analysis is that it uses static models even when examining effects that are intrinsically dynamic – as in the case of all exclusionary practices …” P.192
“[a]ll calls for the rule of reason should be understood as either intentionally or unconsciously disguised attempts to remove the area from antitrust scrutiny” P.196 (I am not sure I 100% agree with this one though)
(Image possibly to copyrights: source here)
Fermat
In our small epistemic community, many people view antitrust law as a superiorly complex subject – one which laymen cannot understand. Also, I have noticed that many antitrust professionnals display little humility, and view themselves as superiorly intellectual (I hope I am not concerned).
Now, if you wanna see real “brains“, please check this truly superb documentary on Fermat’s theorem.
Found on optimum.
Thoughts
Living and working in Brussels offers the opportunity to talk and meet with practitioners from all sides. In this context, a lunch with colleagues may help bring new perspectives on issues.
On second thoughts, and as a matter of principle, one may question whether the appointment of a former official of the Commission’s legal service as hearing officer is as appropriate as mentioned in my tweet two days ago. Nothing to do with Wouter Wils’s brilliant legal skills (I am a great fan of his academic work). But in terms of neutrality, it is somewhat odd to appoint as a referee someone who spent years defending the Commission’s decisions in Court against companies. I guess this may create a bias (or am I the one with a suspicious bias )? Much to the advantage of the companies facing Commission proceedings, however, is the fact that this particular hearing officer knows the case-law on fundamental rights inside out.
Misconception?
Check this (in French language)
Were De Gaulle and his fellows really hostile to free-market policies and competition?
Thanks to Pierre Honore for the pointer.
(Image possibly subject to copyrights: source here)
Competition in the Belgian Electronic Communications Sector
Please find below a ppt presentation which reviews recent decisions in order to assess whether – as argued in official circles – the Competition Council has beefed up its enforcement policy in the electronic communications sector. It draws on two articles that I recently co-authored with Ief Daems (Howrey LLP) and Elise Provost (ULg).
For more, see I. Daems et N. Petit, « La fin de la récréation pour l’opérateur historique? », TBM-RCB, 2009/3, p.66 ; and N. Petit et E. Provost, « L’émancipation du Conseil de la concurrence? », TBM-RCB, 2010/2, p.89.
Apologies for the absence of post yesterday.
(Image possibly subject to copyrights: source here)
Upcoming Conference
The two rising stars of UK competition law, Christopher Brown and David Bailey, have asked us to post the below announcement. Looks promising.
FIFTH JUNIOR COMPETITION PRACTITIONERS CONFERENCE — CALL FOR SPEAKERS
The editors of the Competition Law Journal are pleased to announce the fifth Junior Competition Practitioners Conference. This year’s Conference will take place on 3 December 2010 and will comprise two sessions dedicated to the law and practice on penalties and other enforcement techniques.
For further details please scroll to the bottom of the following web page:-
http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/publications/commercial/competition-law-journal
If you would like to speak at the Conference, please contact Vian Quitaz – vjquitaz@hotmail.com – with an expression of interest and a short outline of your proposed topic.
A separate announcement will be made in due course for those interested in attending the Conference.
Misc.
The winners of yesterday’s quizz are Anna and Alfonso. Here’s the source: B. Hawk, “Un tour d’horizon de la politique de la concurrence”, Cahiers de droit européen , 1992, n°5, p.1. I found the quote in one of my students (Mathieu Coquelet) dissertation.
I am currently reading students dissertations. I find this very stimulating intellectually. Two ideas came to mind in going through their papers:
- From an economic standpoint, the prohibition of RPM even at low market share levels makes some sense, because it allows price differenciation at the distribution level (e.g., distributors can efficiently price discriminate to serve more customers/recoup fixed costs more rapidly);
- What economic errors could give rise to compensation under Articles 268-340 TFUE ?: Saying that establishing tacit collusion does not require the proof of retaliation mechanism; using list prices rather than transaction prices to establish a finding of SIEC, whilst rebates are pervasive on the relevant market.
Testing your competition knowledge
Who said that the dual, bifurcated structure of Article 101 was the “original sin” of EU competition law?
Heard on the Grapevine
Our friend Pablo Ibanez Colomo was apparently appointed as a lecturer at the London School od Economics (“LSE”). TBC, but congrats already.
For those of you who do not know him, Pablo is a promising competition lawyer, who recently defended a Phd at the EUI in Florence. The subject of his Phd was: “European Communications Law and Technological Convergence. Deregulation, Re-regulation and Regulatory Convergence in Television and Telecommunications“.
Joke
Apologies to all my friends at the Commission who read this blog, but I thought this was just a good one:
“What is the difference with Terrorists and European Fonctionnaires?, Well with Terrorists at least you can negotiate”
A noteworthy precision: it is taken from a blog written by a Commission official.
(Image subject to copyrights: source here)
Chillin'Competition 
