Author Archive
The European Commission’s Legal Service
One of the good things about this blog is that it enables us to give credit to the people who, in our view, deserve it.
Today it’s the turn of the European Commission’s Legal Service.
Why them? Because many of the most brilliant jurists and many of the most reasonable and kind people that I have come across in my professional life were/are members of the Commission’s Legal Service. We won’t cite individual names because it would be unfair to those not mentioned, but also because the list would be too long.
These guys know competition and State aid law inside out, but they also know there are other provisions in the EU Treaties; they have the uncomfortable mission of second-guessing the case team’s work and of facing lawyers in Courts; they don’t have the same means and tools that big firms have; they sometimes have to fight armies of lawyers with the help of only one or two colleagues; they have an unbearable workload (Fernando Castillo de la Torre recently told us that he’d had more than 20 oral hearings last June!); and still they win most cases. And when they win there are two options: (a) either other people get the credit; or (b) everyone blames the Court for getting things wrong. That’s not always fair; I have worked with, and most often against, them, and in every single case they did an outstanding job.
Were Court submissions in the EU not confidential (query: should they?), people would realize the importance that the Legal Service has had in shaping up competition law.
All of this sounds like we are buttering them up but, frankly, it´s what we think. We seldom see their work praised in public (praising the ones on the other side of the table is not always common whereas demonizing the Commission is), so we decided to take it upon us to say that the work these guys do is to be acknowledged.
We said above that some of the most brilliant and nicest people in the competition law we’ve met in the competition law world belong to the Legal Service. We are very proud to anticipate that one person who fits perfectly into this description, Eric Gippini-Fournier, will be our next “Friday Slot” interviewee. (P.S. Click here for the interview)
François Hollande and Competition Law
The French Presidential election was held yesterday and, as you know, François Hollande won.
There is significant expectation as to the changes that the result of this election might entail for the rest of the European Union. Now, should we expect any changes in the competition law domain?
Nicolas Sarkozy did have an undeniable impact on competition law. First he managed to delete from the Lisbon Treaty the reference to the objective of ensuring “free and undistorted competition” in the EU (see here and here) and then he taught us the difference between endive growers, Apple and Microsoft (an explanation that, as you may remember, prompted our friend Mark English to stop wrapping his iPhone in ham).
Those interested in Hollande’s views on competition law should read his replies to Concurrences’ interview (in French, though).
The Friday Slot (10): Herbert Hovenkamp
As we announced a couple of daus ago, today’s Friday Slot festures an interview with Herbert Hovenkamp. We also said in our previous post that, even though we have never met Professor Hovenkamp in person, there are very few people who have taught us more about antitrust law. His works (cited in this 17-page CV) exude an all too rare lucidity. When he was awarded the John Sherman Prize by the US Department of Justice, Thomas Barnett said that “Professor Hovenkamp sets the standard for antitrust scholarship today”. We agree. If you ask us, Professor Hovenkamp is not only the co-author of the best book in the history of antitrust law, but he’s also the author of a few more of the works that would feature in our top-10. That’s why we were thrilled to receive an email in our inbox from him (signed as “Herb”) accepting our invitation to take part in The Fridat Slot only a few minutes after we contacted him.
We are immensely grateful to Professor Hovenkamp for having accepted our invitation, for all that his work has taught us and will continue to teach us, and for his enormous contribution to making antitrust law a more sensible discipline. We leave you with him now.
“Oscar” of the best antitrust law book? Non-antitrust book?
Best Antitrust Book: Oliver E. Williamson, Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications (1975).
Best non-antitrust book: Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (2001)
“Oscar” of the best case-law development in the past year? “Oscar” of the worst case-law development?
Best: Mayo Clinic v. Prometheus Laboratories, 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012)
Worst: FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 663 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2011).
Let’s do it like economists => assume that you could change 3 rules, principles, judgments, institutions in the current EU antitrust system. What would you do?
Answer: I would speak only to the United States system, where I would change the following three things:
A. The per se rule against tying arrangements (insofar as it still exists)
B. The strict recoupment requirement in predatory pricing cases when prices are clearly below average variable cost
C. The federal courts’ repeated refusal to see the competitive harm in reverse payment settlements in pharmaceutical infringement cases
Average working time/week?
According to my family, way too much.
Why do you work in antitrust law? How did you first get into it?
A very good and inspiring teacher in law school, Lino Graglia of the University of Texas
Most interesting, intense or funny moment of your career?
The first time I sent a manuscript to my sadly departed and at the time very senior co-author, Phillip E. Areeda, in 1985. It was intense although not necessarily funny.
Your role model (if any) in the antitrust community?
What do you like the least about your job?
Grading exams
What do you like the most about your job?
The classroom, particularly my antitrust, torts and innovation and competition policy classes.
What do you like the most about economics in antitrust law?
Its ability to separate rational from irrational conduct (at least in many cases)
What you like the least about economics in antitrust law?
Its tendency to become overly technical and thus beyond the reach of the people who are most central to antitrust decision making.
What career/personal achievement are you most proud of?
Completion of the Antitrust Law treatise after Phillip E. Areeda’s death in 1995, and also the recent completion of my book Creation Without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation (with Christina Bohannan) (Oxford, 2012)
A piece of “counterfactual” analysis: what would you do if you weren’t in your current position?
I would be either a Dutch Reformed clergyman or a Professor of American History
Besides being a “antitrust geek” (sorry for this one, but we all are), what are your hobbies?
Raising children and dogs, and traveling
Favorite movies?
Sappy chickflicks: The Notebook, Sleepless in Seattle, Titanic
Favorite music style in general?
1980s and 1990s rock and progressive country
Your favorite place in the world?
Paris
Your favorite motto?
« Just Do It » [apologies to Nike]
Websites that you visit the most (besides Chillin’Competition)?
–RealClearPolitics.com
–Slate.com
–eBay.com
A piece of advice for junior antitrust professionals?
For young antitrust academics: don’t get too hung up on ideology.
Reading Competition Law Books
In our “Friday Slot” interviews we ask what competition law book deserves an Antitrust Oscar. A frequent reply from our interviewees is that they do not read competition law books but rather consult specific sections of such books when they are looking for something in particular.
We don’t necessarily agree with this view. Even though there are certainly some books that we only use for reference, we believe that some of the best books on antitrust are texts that you will not come accross if you’re just looking for references or for the answer to a very particular problem.
In our very own experience, reading certain competition law books written by people who clearly outsmart us has provided us good general overview of issues that we may not had/have yet seen in our professional life, and, most importantly, it has obliged us to reflect and think about what makes sense and what doesn’t in a discipline to which we devote an insane proportion of our life. Personally, we have learnt most of the theory we know from books and not from attending courses, seminars or conferences, no matter how good they were.
The obvious -and reasonable- response is “if, as you say, you already devote an insane amount of time to this, why on earth would you spend non-working time reading about the same subject?”. That’s partly true, but, the way we see it, it is one thing to spend your time working on a particular issue, and a very different one to take the time and distance (not to let the trees hide the woods) to reflect on the reasonableness of the overall discipline in which we are immersed.
We’re not saying that we do -nor, of course, that anyone else should- read competition law books instead of non-competition law books. No matter how good a competition law book is, non-competition law books teach you or open your mind to much more important stuff. We are just saying that -when we’ve had the time- we have found it useful to include some competition law books in our reading list.
A (certainly non-exhaustive) selection of some of the competition law books that make a most interesting read could feature Hovenkamp’s “The Antitrust Enterprise“; Areeda and Kaplow’s “Antitrust Analysis: Problems, Text, Cases“; Bork’s “The Antitrust Paradox“; Posner’s “Antitrust Law“; Amato’s “Antitrust and the Bounds of Power“; Luis Ortiz’s “Market Power in EU Antitrust Law“, Giorgio Monti’s “EC Competition Law” or Odudu’s “The Boundaries of EC Competition Law; The Scope of Article 81“. There are many other great books but we can’t name them all (suggestions in the form of comments will be welcome!).
The ones I’m currently in the (slow) process of reading (alternating from one to the other) are “Creation without Restraint: Promoting Liberty and Rivalry in Innovation” by C. Bohannan and H. Hovenkamp; Kevin Coates’ “Competition Law and Regulation of Technology Markets” and Einer Elhauge’s (Ed), “Research Handbook on the Economics of Antitrust Law“. I´ll also be happy to read Nicolas’ most recent book ; sorry, wrong link; this is the right one! 😉 I intend to post a review of these books here once I´m done with them.
Regardless of all the above, my personal favourite antitrust book ever is one that I have only used for specific consultations and that I will most likely never read: the Treatise written by Areeda and Hovenkamp: “Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and their Application“. The reason why I know I won’t read it is that it looks like this:
Three additional comments:
– Herbert Hovenkamp -whose work is referenced above a few times- is clearly one of the 4 or 5 people from whom I’ve learnt more antitrust law, and the only one of these (aside from his co-author late Philip Areeda) whom I have never had the chance to meet in person (which again proves the importance of competition law books). We are very proud to anticipate that our next Friday Slot interview is with him!
– There is much to be said about the pricing of many of these books. But we’ll deal with that in a separate post.
– I recently recommended here a non-competition book -in Spanish, though- and a few (four) of you have sent emails saying that you loved it, which is nice to hear. Here is another suggestion, in English this time: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genious.
Change of tone
Today’s edition of The New York Times features an interesting piece on the “change of tone” that migh have taken place at DG Comp with regard to antitrust intervention in high-tech industries. It argues that the Commission is now favouring effective and timely solutions instead of the time-consuming proceedings and the headline grabbing large fines that characterized “Steely Neelie’s” era (their expression, not ours!) The article attributes this change to the lessons learned throught the Microsoft case as well as to the appointment of Joaquín Almunia as Competition Commissioner.
Very importantly, The New York Times once again quotes a certain Professor Petit, from the University of Liège 😉
The piece does not make any mention to the change of key people at DG COMP’s Unit in charge of IT, Internet and Consumer Electronics. Per Hellström -who was until now its Head of Unit- is leaving for the merger unit dealing with energy and utilities. Its successor will be facing a huge workload and quite a few challenges, many of them in the form complaints, which these days are growing like mushrooms in the IT sector. If our information is correct, the Commission will be appointing an excellent new Head of Unit (sorry, but this time we can’t give you the Chillin´leak…yet).
One of the hottest potatoes on the desk of the new Head of Unit will be to deal with the many IP-related complaints and ongoing investigations. This will be precisely the topic of an interesting lunch talk held today by Concurrences, Arnold&Porter and CRA, that I will be attending in a few hours (will have already attended by the time this post is published).
This is not the sole social competition law event of the day. Nicolas and I have also been very kindly invited to attend the gala dinner for the EU Business Summit. The downside (apart from the fact that given the presence of the Royal Family we’ll have to shave) is that I´ll be missing the Real Madrid-Bayern match (any email informing on the evolution of the match will be greatly appreciated!). And this leads us to the final piece of info of today’s post:
Bayern Munich appears to be fighting Spanish clubs not only in the pitch. DG Comp confirmed yesterday that, pursuant to a complaint lodged by German clubs, it is now investigating whether Spain is granting unlawful State aids to a number of clubs. Two years ago we already said that there was a risk that this could happen. We’ll keep you posted on this too.
Man Proc, Confidentiality and Red Little Riding Hood
In preparation for my lecture at the Brussels School of Competition last week I read a couple of Commission documents that I had not had a chance to look at: the Manual on Procedure and the recent Guidance on Confidentiality Claims. For very different reasons both of them are commendable.
– The Manual of Procedure is much more comprehensive than what I think most of us had expected (even if the non-confidential version -which has 277 pages- appears to be half as long as the original one, which according to the Ombudsman was “roughly 500 pages”). John Temple Lang deserves to be congratulated for having managed to have the European Commission make its Manual public, but the Commission also deserves to be thanked for having favored transparency when drafting the publicly available version.
The only thing I find missing in the public version is a summary description of the content that has not been included in the Manual because of confidentiality concerns. It would have been nice if the Commission had followed the instructions set out in its own guidance on confidentiality claims which state that “[f]rom the non-confidential version it has to be clear where information has been deleted“.
– The Guidance on Confidentiality Claims was not a promising document. There can be little of promise in a document whose subject-matter is the most boring thing a lawyer can do (I must confess that I started reading the doc very late at night on Thursday and was very tempted to skip it). But against all odds, the Guidance makes a fun skim read. Yep, I´m serious. Whoever wrote it has done a terrific job. The main characters of the Guidance are Red Little Riding Hood, her Grandma, Big Bad Wolf, Mr. Charming, Snow White, Ms. Magic Mirror, Wicked Step Mother, Mr. Humpty Dumpty, the Little Mermaid, the three little pigs and others. 😉
P.S. By the way, on the procedural front the Commission has in recent times issued not only the Manual, but also a comprehensive set of Best Practices and a new Hearing Officer’s mandate. Query: are any of these moves aimed at preempting a possible challenge to the current procedural framework before the European Court of Human Rights once the EU joins the Convention?
Sunday readings
There’s generally a moment every Sunday in which I try to catch up reading newspapers and magazines that I haven’t had the time to check out during the week. I’m doing this right now (while, btw, I listen to great music that Nicolas recommended me yesterday) and I’ve come accross something which deserves a comment here.
Today’s edition of El Pais features an interesting piece by Paul Krugman called “Europe’s Economic Suicide” (originally published in The New York Times) in which he argues that fiscal austerty imposed by Germany is pushing other Member States -and very particularly Spain- to the disaster. I cannot but agree with practically everything he says.
Krugman’s article has spurred a thought (not a brainy one; after all it’s Sunday):
It is funny (and funny may not be the adequate term) to realize that the people in charge of getting the EU economy out of trouble are competition economists. I bet that a most of you reading this will immediately think of Mario Monti (former Competition Commissioner who is now Italy’s Prime Minister), of Spain’s Minister for the Economy -Luis de Guindos-, who used to head of the competition authority, and maybe even of Spain’s Secretary of State for the Economy -Fernando Jimenez Latorre- who was also in charge of competition policy in Spain and who prior to his recent appointment directed NERA’s business in Spain.
What you may not know is that there is another well-known competition economist who is not in the first political line but who probably has even more influence on the European economy than any of the above-mentioned. This would be the person who inaugurated the Chief Economist post at DG COMP, Lars-Hendrik Röller, and whose current position is Economic Advisor to Chancellor Angela Merkel. A few months ago The Economist had a piece which read as follows: “Mrs Merkel may be lacking high-quality advice. Her newish economic adviser is Lars-Hendrik Röller, known for his writings on competition rather than high finance“.
I respect Röller as a competition economists and I believe he did well during his period at DG Comp but, to be frank, I think that him and the German government are not getting it right nowadays. This makes me share The Economist’s concerns that there might be different relevant markets for competition economics and for macro economics.
P.S. More on politics: the French presidential election is being held today. We are worried, because we have realized that apparently one of the candidates -Marine Le Pen- shares our concerns with regard to endives and cat food cartels and is campaigning on them (see here). Thanks to Caroline Si Bouazza for mentioning Chillin’Competition in her comments about this curious video!
Judicial appointments (including a Chillin’ leak)
A few days ago it was reported that the Danish presidency had proposed that 12 extra Judges to the General Court be appointed pursuant to a “lottery system”. At first we thought it was an April’s fools joke, but no, it’s actually a true story.
We have already expressed here some of our opinions with respect to the debate concerning the reform of the General Court. In our view, people matter more than institutional arrangements; or, in other words, if Member States appoint the right Judges then the backlog and most other problems could be effectively solved. Many Member States have already done so and, needless to say, there are currently a number incredibly good and productive Judges at the General Court.
And speaking of judicial nominations, EU Governments are meeting this week to vote on the appointments or re-appointments of a number of Judges and Advocates General at the upper ECJ.
It has been reported elsewhere that EU Governments will reappoint Judges Arabadjiev, Arestis, Berger, Bonichot, Fernlund, Jarasiunas, Levits, Malenovsky, Prechal and Von Danwitz as well as AG Bot, and that the new faces will be Judge Da Cruz Villaça (Portuguese; former President of the GC and very familiar with competition law issues) and Advocates General Nils Wahl (Swedish; former Judge at the GC and another very good competition expert) and Melchior Wathelet (Belgian; lawyer and economist from the University of Liège with a Harvard LL.M; also former Judge at the ECJ).
What we believe no one else has yet reported is that the UK has formally nominated a renowned competition lawyer, Christopher Vajda QC, as the new British Judge at the ECJ. The letter sent to the Council by the UK´s permanent representation officially informing them of the proposal (and including Mr. Vajda’s CV and list of publications) is publicly available here.
Competition Press Clips (II)
Some months ago we wrote a post explaining that some news stories are read differently from the perspective of an antitrust geek. Let’s continue with that series:
– In the above-mentioned post we reported on the use of novel anti-competitive practices in the US pizza market (remember the guy who planted live mice on competing pizza parlors?). That story was an illustration of how dirty tough competition law can be when it comes to food (as I’m writing I keep on telling to myself: “don’t make an endive joke; don´t”, so: no endive joke here). But the economic downturn seems to have further complicated things. The New York Times recently published a brilliantly written and quite humorous piece on the origins and effects of the price war that is currently taking place in the streets of Manhattan. The article forecasts that we may even end up having free pizza.
– Few consumers would object to free pizza. We have a weird love for free stuff (Brussels is, btw, a great city for gratuity lovers: you could perfectly survive without spending a cent of food just by attending receptions and cocktails; there are people who qualify as professionals at doing this). But a recent Judgment from the 15th Chamber of the Paris Commercial Courts has confirmed once again that, although we like “free”, we don´t understand the competitive implications of free products/services. The Judgment in Bottin v Google -a great candidate to the 2012 worst antitrust law development prize- has completely ignored that providing a free service in one side of a two-sided market cannot be akin to predatory pricing, without at least considering pricing on the other side of the market. An unofficial English version of the Judgment has been generously issued for free by the association of complainants against Google iComp. Considering that other people provide transalations for a price, we hope iComp is not also fined for predatory practices because of this free translation! (In iComp’s defense, one could claim that there is also an obvious business motive underlying the provision of this free service. But then a cynic could respond asking whether horizontal cooperation specifically aimed at hurting a specific undertaking -even through the use of legal actions- could not qualify as an illegal anticompetitive practice itself?). 😉
– Not only pizza makers and search engines face tough competition. BBC reports that a London-based minicab firm Addison-Lee has asked its drivers to drive in the “bus lanes” as a sign of protest against the rules that reserve the use of these lanes to licensed black taxis and buses. The company argues that “the current bus lane legislation is anti-competitive and unfairly discriminates against the millions of passengers that use Addison Lee“. Drivers in Brussels must have objections to the legality of the whole traffic code; otherwise it’s impossible to understand why they drive the way they do.
– Nicolas’ piece on Credit Rating Agencies seems to have inspired some: As reported by mlex, asset managers have filed an antitrust complaint against Standard & Poors in Switzerland.
-And speaking of mlex (which, as we have said here before, does a terrific job and has almost turned into an essential facility for anyone in the business), we have just found out that one of their excellent writers, Lewis Crofts, does not only cover competition law issues for MLex but is also an accomplished novelist (click here for his personal website). His novel “The Pornographer of Vienna” tells the story of a painter who was famous for his sexually explicit depictions of the Viennese underworld. Those who read it will find some familiarity with the competition law world.
P.S. I really tried, but I just can’t help it: putting mice in competing pizza places is pretty bad, but putting endives on your rival’s pizzas would really be too much!
The Economist Corner (III): “Intent” in Article 102 cases
For this third edition of The Economist Corner we have invited Hans Zenger. Hans used to be a member of the Chief Economist Team at DG Comp and is currently Senior Consultant at CRA. He’s is not only one of the most brilliant economists in town, but he’s also a great gruy.
As noted here some months ago, and even though there remains much to be done, Hans will also be one of the co-authors (the others will be Miguel de la Mano, Renato Nazzini and myself) of the Article 102 chapter of the next edition of Faull & Nikpay’s The EU Law of Competition.
We leave you with his ruminations on the role of intent in Article 102 cases. This topic, and many others, are dealt with in his article “Loyalty Rebates and the Competitive Process”, which is forthcoming in the Journal of Competition Law & Economics.)
***
In criminal law, proof of intent plays an important role in establishing the scope of liability. If A intends to benefit at the expense of B, then A is probably up to no good. In antitrust, this principle has all too easily been extended to unilateral conduct law. The problem is that the intent of benefitting at the expense of others is essentially what generates the beneficial outcome of a market economy:
• The prospect of “exploiting” consumers is what provides firms with an incentive to produce valuable products that improve over existing varieties.
• And the prospect of “excluding” rivals from making sales is what provides firms with an incentive to cut price to expand output.
In other words, the self-serving intent to “exploit” and “foreclose” is a cornerstone of the competitive process.
Adam Smith succinctly explained this in 1776: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard of their own interest … By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”
If one too readily transposes the zero-sum logic of criminal law to unilateral conduct investigations, then Smith’s conclusion constitutes a paradox: If A intends to benefit at the expense of B, how could that possibly be good for B? But as Schumpeter has explained, “There is no more of a paradox in this than there is in saying that motorcars are traveling faster than they otherwise would because they are provided with brakes.”
The evidentiary value of intent evidence in Article 102 cases therefore has its limits. Perhaps not surprisingly, regulators on occasion have shown a tendency to read too much into such documents. As Judge Easterbrook has noted, “firms ‘intend’ to do all the business they can, to crush their rivals if they can … Rivalry is harsh, and consumers gain the most when firms slash costs to the bone and pare price down to cost, all in pursuit of more business. Few firms price unaware of what they are doing; price reductions are carried out in pursuit of sales, at others’ expense. Entrepreneurs who work hardest to cut their prices will do the most damage to their rivals, and they will see good in it. You cannot be a sensible business executive without understanding the link among prices, your firm’s success and other firm’s distress. If courts use the vigorous, nasty pursuit of sales as evidence of forbidden ‘intent,’ they run the risk of penalizing the motive forces of competition.”
Chillin'Competition 