Tweets
A welcome initiative: under the impetus of its creative chairman, Dr. Theodor Thanner, the Austrian Competition Authority has started to communicate on twitter. The account is BWB_WETTBEWERB. Some of you will have noticed that we have drawn inspiration from this. A twitter box appears in the right column of this blog. Unfortunately, GSM service is not yet available in Belgium. I will try to get fully familiar with the interface in the coming weeks. Amongst other things, the plan is to tweet during competition law events.
A Must Read for the Summer
In his last paper, Dan Sokol (Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog) finds evidence that there was no significant reduction in merger enforcement under Bush.
In addition to this, Dan provides citations to a relevant Simpsons episode, post-modernist philosopher Michel Foucault, and 80s’ rock band Wang-Chung along with the usual antitrust suspects in law and economics.
Below the abstract, and a link here to the paper.
ABSTRACT: This article provides a descriptive, analytical overview of the various institutions to better frame the larger institutional interrelations for a comparative institutional analysis. In the next Part it examines mergers as a case study of how one might apply antitrust institutional analysis across these different kinds and levels of antitrust institutions. The Article utilizes both quantitative and qualitative methods based on survey data of antitrust practitioners on merger issues to better understand institutional choice and the decision-making process. The surveys reveal results that run counter to the popular antitrust discourse about the level of merger enforcement under Bush. Slightly more than half of all practitioners surveyed found no change in merger enforcement under Bush in their own practice and the vast majority of the rest found a change in enforcement to be merely at the margins. The Article concludes with observations from the case study and appeals for more theoretical and empirical works in antitrust institutional analysis.
(Image possibly subject to copyrights: source here)
A Big Win
Last Monday, a group of LL.M. students from the University of Liege (ULg) won the concours Lamy de la concurrence held at the French NCA in Paris. The team was composed of Anne-Sophie Come, Mathieu Coquelet, Pierre Sabbadini, Willem de Vos and Norman Neyrinck (coach). This is obviously a source of great satisfaction and pride. Hat tip to the students and their coach.
Below, the new LL.M. brochure for 2010.
Breaking News – Brussels based LL.M. in Competition Law and Economics
I am delighted to announce the setting up of the Brussels School of Competition (“BSC”). The BSC is organised under the aegis of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (“FEB”). Its primary purpose is to provide a high-profile, specialised course leading to an advanced Master (LL.M.) in Competition Law and Economics. This course has been especially designed so as to be fully compatible with the requirements of professional practice.
Over the past decades, the European Union (“EU”) competition rules have become a critical legal issue for companies in all sectors of the economy. With rules covering a variety of practices including cooperation and distribution agreements, abuse of dominance, unfair trade practices and State aid, firms in the EU and elsewhere face increased antitrust exposure and, in turn, a significant challenge in terms of compliance. In addition to this, the introduction of industrial economics into the various areas of EU competition policy has considerably increased the degree of analytical sophistication of antitrust proceedings.
To meet the growing demand for training in this discipline, I have – together with my FEB colleagues Charles Gheur and Philippe Lambrecht – established a full-fledged LL.M. programme which provides – unlike most Brussels-based seminars and conferences – (i) a comprehensive and structured teaching programme, with periodic assessments, and (ii) multidisciplinary courses in both competition law and economics.
You can find below a flyer presenting the LL.M. programme. As you will see, the LL.M. boasts an impressive faculty, comprising lawyers and economists, officials and private practitioners, who are all acknowledged experts in their fields.
For more information on the programme, please visit www.brusselsschoolofcompetition.eu or send us an e-mail: info@brusselsschoolofcompetition.eu
The Massacre of the innocents
In “Fine Arts in Brussels“, an article written by Luis Ortiz, Angel Givaja and myself last year, we used Bruegel´s “Massacre of the innocents” to illustrate the idea that the progressive increase of the amount of fines could eventually undermine the financial situation of many companies, thereby damaging the innocent (workers and shareholders), while leaving those responsible for the infringement (the managers) unscathed.
I just came accross a very recent study by Oxford Economics on the “follow-on effects of cartel fines on investment and employment” which seems to confirm our fears about the inadequacy of disproprotionately high fines. The study concludes that “a large fine on a cartel member will have a knock-out effect accross the economy as a whole, impacting on firms and workers who were not involved in the original cartel“.
Thanks to J.M Panero for the pointer!
HLS Seminar discussion on refusals to licence.
Continuing with the series of posts written by Harvard Law students for the seminar on Antitrust, Technology and Innovation, you can find part of the discussion on refusals to licence in the comments to this post.
As explained earlier, some of these comments refer to the readings available in the syllabus.
Competition Law and Sport (IV)- The US Supreme Court’s decision in American Needle v NFL
On May 24th the US Supreme Court issued its most important antitrust decision of the term in the case confronting American Needle and the NFL. As we expected, the Court unanimously rejected the NFL’s contention that its 32 teams should be treated as a “single entity” for antitrust purposes.
The last opinion authored by Justice Stevens reverses a previous decision by the 7th Circuit and holds that NFL’s teams “are still separate, profit-making entities, and their interests in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned”. The Court rejected a formal analysis by ruling that the single entity created by the NFL to manage teams’ IP rights was merely an instrument at the service of its teams.
In essence, the Supreme Court’s Judgment preserves the status quo, thus fully subjecting agreements entered into by sport leagues to a rule of reason analysis. However, some have pointed out that American Needle could have wider implications affecting other ventures between competitors outside the sports world.
The Supreme Court showed some sympathy to the idea that leagues have a “legitimate and important” interest in “maintaining a competitive balance among athletic teams.” Nevertheless, the weight that shall be accorded to such interest in balancing the pro and anti-competitive features of a given agreement remains unclear. In any case, the Supreme Court appears to legitimize competitive balance as a potential redeeming virtue for Section 1 purposes. Whether Article 101 TFEU allows or not to consider similar interests remains highly controversial. What’s your take?
Paper and Slides presented at Vienna Competition Conference
I attach below a set of slides (very simple) and a very preliminary draft text (loads of things to complete) presented at the Vienna Competition Conference 2010 which took place yesterday in Austria. Comments welcome.
I am told that all the materials presented at the conference will shortly be posted there.
I am off for a few days. Meanwhile, Alfonso will take care of the shop.
Behavioral Economics and Abuse of Dominance – PETIT and NEYRINCK
Slides on Review of the Rules Applicable to Horizontal Cooperation Agreements
- 48th lunch talk – 7 July – First Settlement Decision in the DRAMs Case, with K. Dekeyser, P. Mansfield and R. Snellders
- 49th lunch talk – 23 September – Quantification of Damages with Judge P. Roth and A. Lofaro
Re: I love my job
I recently took some time off to put to put an end to my stay in the US, and during those days I gave some thought to Nicolas’ recent post about competition lawyers disliking their job. Since I’m told that he had me in mind when referring to the 1% of lawyers that do “love their job”, I feel I should share my views on the issue:
It’s true that after a yet very brief experience I can say that I enjoy what I do (and apparently this turns me into a weird specimen..). I must however admit that I have been enormously fortunate with regard to the people with whom I’ve worked and the cases that I’ve dealt with, and so I cannot fully rule out that my opinion might change in the future. I would like to think that I’d quit if this ever happened, or if I eventually felt that I could make a wider positive contribution elsewhere.
The way I see it, practicing competition law at a law firm offers constant and varied challenges as well as a privileged insight into a wide array of markets and business practices or strategies. It also generally implies working closely with a multinational group of highly skilled colleagues to an extent that can hardly be matched by any other jobs outside international institutions. Moreover, in parallel to the strictly legal stuff there is a great business component to working at a firm (finding, managing and preserving clients) that distinguishes this job from other law-related jobs and that I find most appealing. Finally, the job is generally quite well paid too.
Of course there are downsides to it, but I agree with Nicholas that us lawyers are, to a certain extent, part of the problem. We have a noticeable tendency to believe that our job is the most important thing in the world (and it surely is important, it’s challenging, it’s interesting, and sometimes is very visible, but no doubt there are many more important things), and we also often tend to talk about how stressed and busy we are (if what we do is soo important and we are soo busy, then we should be really important people, right?) Nonetheless, the world is much larger than a lawyer’s desk, and passion for our job should not make us lose focus. Greater consciousness about this could perhaps contribute to mitigating what seems to be a constant competition about who’s busier.
To be sure, I do think that long hours or lack of flexibility do pose a significant problem that is yet to be satisfactorily addressed by many law firms. Failure to do so implies turning the back to brilliant people who could love their job but who also value other aspects of life (precisely the people with whom most of us would be more comfortable working with). In my view, the best example of this can be found in the limited number of women making a career in law despite the fact that they tend to perform better academically (and, in my view, often have a greater common sense…). Favoring unhappy and narrow-minded “robots” over brilliant and motivated people can hardly do any good. One should avoid thinking that a client is better served by people who execute tasks without any engagement, no matter how many hours they devote to their work. Most of us would agree that firms which strive to keep their lawyers happy and motivated are better positioned to attract talent and to thereby excel in their service. At the end of the day, whether we’re talking about lawyers or about their firms, there can be no real success without satisfaction.





