In this issue:
We’re ending the summer with a departure from our usual focus on a single topic, rather presenting a diverse and topical assortment of articles. First up is Judge Ding Wenlian from the Shanghai Higher People’s Court who discusses how Chinese authorities look at minimum RPM agreements. Then Michael Carrier continues our ongoing discussion of SEP issues with a comprehensive primer. Staying with technology issues are Shyam Khemani on how to best appraise the internet search market for competition violations and Mario Todino who finds a surprising convergence in the U.S. and EU approach to IP Rights. Finally, Jim Nieberding focuses on the potential anticompetitive aspects of MFNs. Enjoy!
In the absence of sufficient empirical evidence indicating that most minimum resale price maintenance behaviors harm competition, for China it is not a wise choice to adopt either a “per se illegal” or “principle of prohibition + exceptions exemption” for minimum resale price maintenance behavior. Ding Wenlian (Shanghai Higher People’s Court)
SEPs present complex issues that are constantly changing and bear watching. Michael Carrier (Rutgers Law School)
Competition authorities need to ascertain if a firm’s alleged dominant market position stems from “superior competitive performance” over rivals. R. Shyam Khemani (MiCRA)
There is much more convergence between the U.S. and the EU systems than what has been conventionally thought. Mario Todino (Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Cappelli & Partners)
General conclusions about whether MFNs are pro-competitive or anticompetitive are of little assistance in analyzing whether a particular MFN (or its variants) runs afoul of antitrust laws. James F. Nieberding (North Coast Economics)