Audio
Présentations– Interview de Paul Csiszár, par Kyriakos Fountoukakos : Accessible pour tous (voir ci-dessus)
– Présentations PPT : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)
– Vidéo : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessous)
– Audio : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)
– Synthèse : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)
– Retranscription : Accessible aux abonnés Concurrences+ (voir ci-dessus)
– Documentation liée à l’événement (Cliquez sur Voir plus ci-dessous)
– Articles Concurrences (Cliquez sur Voir plus ci-dessous)
Consultez la section "Prochaines Conferences" pour vous inscrire aux futurs webinaires.
SYNTHÈSE
Robert Willig indicated that new laws have been proposed to renew antitrust in the US and to make it stricter. However, they would likely make antitrust more arbitrary rather than more strictly rigorous and rational. For instance, one of the main projects is the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act (CALERA) proposed by Senator Amy Klobuchar. It creates a presumption of illegality for all mergers that would significantly raise concentration or for which the parties would reach more than 50 percent market share in any relevant market post-combination. If such were the case, the burden would be on the parties to demonstrate that the merger would not diminish competition in the market. But how can a life sciences firm carry that burden by demonstrating entry or rival expandability or the wrong choice of “any” relevant market, without access to rivals’ confidential information on R&D capabilities, roadmaps and capacity that is crucial for assessing dynamic competition ?
