Comparative analysis - Article 82 EC - Section 2 of the Sherman Act - Dominant position - Monopoly power - Abuse - Monopolizing conduct - Lawful business conduct - Unacceptable (unlawful) business conduct - Courts jurisprudence - Reduced pricing - Refusals to deal - Product innovations - Predatory pricing

About "competition on the merits": A comparative view of Article 82 EC and s. 2 Sherman Act

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Barry E. HAWK [1] 1. I was asked to provide a comparative analysis of section 82 and its U.S. equivalent, section 2 of the Sherman Act. Both have a structural element - dominance and monopoly - and a behavioural element, abusive or monopolistic conduct. The following comments will focus on the behavioural element and pay particular attention to its definition: what is meant by behaviour or practices which distort competition, i.e., if one translates the American expression literally, which do not allow competition on the merits ("competition on the merits")? My remarks will be organised around five proposals plus a final proposal. 1. WHAT THE TEXTS SAY -

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • LMS Lex (Mohandseen)

Quotation

Barry E. Hawk, About "competition on the merits": A comparative view of Article 82 EC and s. 2 Sherman Act, September 2005, Concurrences N° 3-2005, Art. N° 232, pp. 33-41

Visites 9321

All reviews