Archive for the ‘Jokes’ Category
Chuck Norris Antitrust Facts
- If Chuck Norris had been Commissioner for competition in the 1980s’, Microsoft would have never achieved dominance
- Chuck Norris can dismantle barriers to entry with a roundhouse kick
- Areeda and Turner did not invent the price-cost test for predatory pricing cases, Chuck Norris told them to do so
If you think of more Chuck Norris Antitrust Facts, pls send them to us.
State aid conferences: that’s where the fun is!
(You’ll understand why we chose this pic if you keep on reading)
The European State Aid Law Institute held its 10th Experts’ Forum on new developments in European State aid law last Thursday and Friday.
I didn’t attend (as a means to reducing my current backlog I’m quitting conferences for a while) but some of my colleagues did. One of my bosses colleagues, José Luis Buendía, develivered a critical presentation on the State Aid Modernisation Initiative (“SAM”). Hopefully he will be able to turn it into a post for this blog once he manages to take some time off for this (he’s currently a bit busy representing the Spanish Fund for Orderly Bank Reestructuring, which will be borrowing 100.000 million euros from the EU rescue funds; see here or, actually, almost anywhere else).
I hear that there were other excellent sessions (e.g. there seems to be unanimous praise for Marc van der Woude’s presentation), but the session that will perhaps stick for longer in attendees minds was the Opinion Panel featuring Ryanair´s CEO (Michael O´Leary) and the Deputy Director General for State aid (Gert-Jan Koopman). As you may know, O´Leary has a reputation for being somewhat of an histrionic character, and he stood up to it.
The version of O´Leary’s CV included in the materials was already a bit different from the usual stuff (I promise I’m not making any of this up):
“Michael O´Leary has served as Ryanair CEO since 1993. Born in a stable in 1961, he was a boy genius, who excelled both academically and at sports. Having represented Ireland internationally at bog snorkelling and flower arranging, he graduated from Trinity College in Dublin as soon as they could get rid of him. He then became another boring KPMG accountant until divine inspiration sentenced him to a life of penal servitude in the airline business. Despite his best efforts, Ryanair is the World´s favorite airline, with 1,5000+ low fare routes accross 28 countries. (…) It is widely known that women find him irresistible“.
Some of the points he made in his speech that were most warmly received by the Commission were that (i) DG COMP has hired North-Korean economists to draft the guidelines on regional airports ; (ii) that no Commission official has ever set foot in Charleroi because they only fly on expensive tickets ; (iii) that he had woken up to fly at 6 a.m, something that the Deputy Director General does not even conceive has humanly possible; and (iv) that there are only two sorts of people that like the guidelines: flag carriers and Kim Jong Il. His last slide was actually of Kim Jong Il saying “These guidelines are fab!”.
I’m so sorry I missed it…
The Fastest Antitrust Expert Award
[If you’re reading this, it means that the above pic of Robocop Nicolas hasn’t scared you off, in which case you’ve earned my respect]
A few posts ago we referred to the proliferation of awards in the competition law world and we created what we referred to as the “first objective legal competition”: the Fastest Antitrust Expert Award. The idea was to give the award to the competition law expert who could run the Brussels 20k faster. We said that we would both participate. Nicolas did and I didn’t (a few days before I was told not to because I seem to have a herniated disc, a.k.a. a very convenient excuse, so I followed the maxim “when in doubt, chicken out“).
A bunch of you ran too. Some of you (mainly our friends who wanted to show off) have been kind enough to send their times. The contest is still open: you have until Friday to submit your results. The provisional semi-finalist readers/runners are the following:
1) Mark English (Shearman & Sterling): 1h 39′ 21” (it was about time that Mark earned a reputation for something other than endive bashing).
2) Nicolas Petit (Chillin’ Competition): 1h 42′ 02” (actually, there’s another (?) Nicolas Petit who apparently did not finish the race -see here ChronoRace20k-; who’s who?).
3) José Enrique Elías (Chief Economist Team): 1h 44′ 12′. We are told that José Enrique ran fast because he was being chased by some violent ordoliberals who were throwing stones at him.
4) Napoleón Ruiz (Garrigues): 1h 48′ 39”. Napoleón was, in fact, one of the ordoliberals throwing stones at José Enrique.
We are also told that Philip Lowe (former Director General at DG Comp, now Director General for Energy) did 1h 42′ 30” and that G.J. Koopman (Deputy Director General for State Aid) did 1h 49′ 27”. Very impressive.
Congrats to all others who took part in the race, and especially to those who signed up by commenting on the previous post, namely Philip Werner, Sandy Tsakiridi, Montse Adam and M. Fevzi Toksoy.
Once again: this post serves not only as a provisional set of results but also as a final call for any other readers to submit their times. We will publish a definitive list – and announce the winner of the coveted Friday slot and Li-ning shoes – in the coming days. So, who beats Mark English?
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?
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!
Enforcement Menu
It all started with endives.
#endives became a trending topic on this blog. However, after two posts (here and here) we decided that we should prevent endives from turning from a hot topic into a reheated topic. Therefore, we decided to put endives and other gastronomic topics in the fridge for a while.
Then the French sanctioned flour makers in an unsuccesful attempt to lead us to write about croissants. We kept our position: if you want to make headlines on Chillin’Competition, you’ll have to do butter, we said.
The French then brought their big guns out. It has been reported that President Sarkozy attended the presidential debate with one main goal: appear on Chillin’ Competition. And he made it. We did yield to the temptation of posting the video in which he explains the difference between endives and apples Apple and Microsoft (this useful explanation prompted some of our readers to stop wrapping their iPods in ham). Yes we were weak, but the temptation to comment on Sarkozy-sponsored cartels was irresistible.
We saw that post as a last exception; we decided to follow a diet and agreed that there’d be no more food on the blog, at least until the summer was over. “I need to be bikini ready” said Nicolas. I also thought that a strict no-food rule was necessary, particulary since Hump-Pilates (incredible video…) doesn’t work well for us. We’ll start next Monday, we said.
And now, come Monday, here are the suggested courses topics that we get from our readers:
The Autorité de la Concurrence fines dog and cat food makers € 35 million.
The Autorité de la Concurrence investigates yogurt producers.
We have to acknowledge our respect for this multi-jurisdictional multi-product strategy to deviate us from our diet. They’ve managed to make it to the blog again. But seriously, we solemnly promise to forget about food:
As God is our witness, we’ll never be hungry food-obsessed again!
We’ll start our diet…next Monday?
The Flour Cartel- A provocation?
Apparently someone at the French Competition Authority liked the series on the endives cartel (see here and here):
The Autorité de la Concurrence has imposed a fine of 242.4 million euros on flour makers.
Isn’t it obvious that this is a poor attempt to provoke us to write a new -and more appetizing- series on croissants?
Nice try, but they’ll have to do butter.
The Endive Brainstorming Room
Yesterday we said we were surprised by the number of people who had suggested us to comment on the fine imposed on French endive growers. Our post on this issue has given rise to very profound competition law related thoughts.
This is why we have created The Endive Brainstorming Room.
In addition to Hans Zenger’s brilliant comment on endives and Giffen goods (see the comments to yesterday’s post), over the past few hours several people have conveyed to us their views on endives:
– Well-known Commission official:
“I think the typically insightful analysis on your blog of the endives cartel has left a couple of important questions unanswered:
First, given that endives figured large on the menu at Garenmarkt a full 20 years ago, I think we should be looking at the possible 102 aspects and not only the 101. There’s clearly some durable market power at work here. The only plausible explanation of this continuing position of dominance must be exclusionary conduct as against those vegetables that are not utterly unpleasant.
Second, I think this cuts to the heart of the consumer welfare problem in antitrust. Surely consumer welfare is enhanced by endives being priced at as high a possible level, thereby reducing demand? Is the cartel therefore not welfare enhancing?”
– Raymond Radiguet:
“Alfonso and Nicolas use this blog to promote vegetables other than endives, which is fine with me. However, the claim that no one likes endives is so obvious that it is simply hilarious“.
– Current students at the College of Europe:
One student says “there is a maverick around here: last week (during dinner on Wednesday 29) a law professor was heard stating “I like endives; it’s a pity that they are not as bitter as they used to be”. “Seed selection should be blamed for this”, he added.
Another student tells us that in reality endives are not dominant: “at most, they are part of a duopoly; I would argue that endives and frites are collectively dominant“.
A third ELEA student commented that ” ‘Roulade de jambon avec endives’ sounds good but tastes horrible“.
– The anonymous lawyer who has found the solution to the debt crisis:
First email: “Great post! So the French are enforcing competition law in the agricultural sector. Cripes – whatever next?! Will DG COMP pay OPEC a visit in Vienna??
Second email (2 minutes later): “Thinking about it, that would be a way to solve Europe’s debt problem – fine all OPEC countries 10% of their turnover! This is brilliant! I’ve found the solution to the crisis!!!!”
If you have any additional reflections on the relationship between endives and competition law/economics that you just can’t keep for yourself, please share them with us.
Reactions to the endives cartel
The French Autorité de la Concurrence has imposed a fine of 3,6 million euros on four French endive growers for their participation in an endive cartel.
The news has attracted the interest of our readers, who have sent us several emails suggesting a post on this story. The interest of our readers on endives has matched that raised in the past by the Dutch investigation on erotic toys and costumes. Weird.
The news has spurred interesting reactions from some experts. “This case proves that what competition law/economics considers in the interests of consumer welfare (low prices, lots of endives) does not necessarily equate to what society (or the students at the College of Europe in Bruges) would consider consumer welfare!”, says Grace Aylward.
Some background: Grace studied as the same time as me in Bruges, and we both share the suspicion that all of the French and Belgian stocks of endives are regularly served to the students at the College of Europe. There is no other plausible explanation as to why endives featured in the menu every other day.
Consulted about this phenomenon, Napoleón Ruiz (who also claims to have been affected by overfeeding of endives in Bruges) said to Chillin’Competition that “the decision of the Autorité de la Concurrence will have the effect of enhancing the dominant position of endives at the menu of the College’s canteen“.
“They are disgusting; I can’t stand them” said Mark English.
Mr. English directed us to another competition lawyer Alex Papanikolaou (“ask Alex; he was a real canteen presence”, he said). Mr Papanikolaou seems to share the opinion of his peer: “Hard to believe people would buy and consume these things at any price, let alone at cartelized prices“, he says.
A legal director at a high-tech company who requested anonimity said “they are as bitter as the country where they’re grown. Anyone buying them deserves the overprice”.
A partner at a Spanish firm says “the Bundeskartellamt should imitate the French Authority and investigate manouvres by German growers of cucumber to impede imports of Spanish cucumber. Why focus on endives when you have cucumbers?”
Please comment on this post if you also have an strong opinion on this investigation.
P.S. For further information on endives click here. For the role of Belgian endives in US politics click here (I’m not joking; and I bet this is the link that you’ll click the most). For recipees featuring endives, click here.
Concurrence’s Antitrust Oscars
In spite of its title, this post is not related to our “Antitrust Oscars” series (see here, here, here and here).
My co-blogger Nicolas is, like Apple and Microsoft, on a complaining mood. Last week he was whining about how in the past few weeks I would (allegedly) not have complied with all of my blog-related duties. Nonetheless, he was smart enough to hide the criticism behind an excessive panegyrical of both my firm and myself, so now I feel I need to give something in return. That’s why I’m committed to give a last push to his campaign for Concurrence’s Antitrust Writing Awards:
Some weeks ago we referred here to this most interesting initiative by the Institute of Competition Law and George Washington Law School, and announced that Nicolas had been selected as one of the candidates for the award in the category of academic articles. Since we launched our online-campaign Nicolas’ piece has reached the first position both in terms of rating (4.44/5) and in terms of number of votes (with more than twice as many votes as the runner up) (temporary results are available here).
As you know, a French movie featuring a funnily looking French chap (see pic above) was the big winner at the Oscar ceremony held last Sunday. I never thought I would say this, but here it goes: please help the French winning streak continue! (Come on; think that it’s highly unlikely that any Frenchman will be winning anything else in the coming decades near future).
You can vote for Nicolas’ piece on “Credit Rating Agencies, the Sovereign Debt Crisis and Competition Law” by clicking here.
Something no one knows about this piece is that it has inspired a complaint lodged by a member of the Italian Parliament with the Italian Antitrust Authority (see here).
The usual incentive applies: if Nicolas wins, all those writing a comment to this post saying that they have voted for him will receive a free beer by courtesy of the candidate.
The awards ceremony will take place on Washington D.C on 27 March. If Nico wins, that moment could recreate another well-remembered landmark in the history of cinema: “Mr Petit goes to Washington” (see capture of the film below) 😉
(Thanks to Susana Rodríguez Sogo for assisting with the photo-editing!)
Chillin'Competition 