Workers and Competition Law in New Zealand

‘The goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws’ evaluates the goals and scope of competition and antitrust laws. Competition laws seek to protect the competitive process in the marketplace from companies that seek to distort it. By safeguarding free and fair markets, competition laws promote consumer welfare as well as efficiencies in the marketplace. While key competition law principles are similar across the world, competition laws are not internationally uniform, but are instead customized by each jurisdiction. A comparison can be made between US Federal Antitrust Law and the EU competition law. There are also other jurisdictions that apply competition laws, including China, Japan, and South Korea.

Rapid technological innovations have challenged the conventional application of antitrust and competition law across the globe. Acknowledging these challenges, this original work analyses the roles of innovation in competition law analysis and reflects on how competition and antitrust law can be refined and tailored to innovation. With chapters from well-established and up-and-coming competition law and economics scholars – from the Academic Society for Competition Law (ASCOLA) – this book reflects on the role innovation has played, and can continue to play, within competition and antitrust law. In addition to uncovering innovation concerns within their analysis, the authors also make important contributions to academic and policy debates on the relationship between these areas of law and other instruments of innovation regulation, such as data protection regulation, intellectual property law, the regulation of big data, platforms and artificial intelligence. Academics in competition and intellectual property law, economics and political science working on data protection or innovation more generally will find this book a useful insight into future challenges for constructing meaningful and effective laws within the area of innovation. Policymakers and practising lawyers will also find the example cases useful, especially for refining and restructuring perception about innovation in competition law.

The increasing prominence of the digital economy, a vital sector driving economic growth, is reflected in the increasing focus that competition authorities devote to intellectual property-intensive and high technology industries. This brings into relief longstanding tensions between competition and intellectual property (IP) laws. IP rights challenge some traditional assumptions about the benefits of competitive markets, in that they protect innovators from some forms of competition, thereby allowing them to price above competitive levels for a period of time. This conflict is more apparent than real, however, as competition law and policy encourages the innovation that IP rights promote. Ultimately, both policies seek to promote consumer welfare, economic growth and innovation. At the same time, the interface between competition and IP law raises significant challenges regarding how the two regimes relate to each other, particularly in areas where they overlap. Approaches to the relationship between competition and IP laws s have evolved over time, moving from the application of formalistic rules to a contemporary focus on the effects of IP-related practices. Even following these developments, new challenges regarding the interface between competition and IP laws keep arising as the economy evolves, new business practices develop and potentially anticompetitive conducts are identified. The goal of this paper is to provide an overview of the competition/IP interface, with a focus on identifying the main challenges that competition law faces in this respect at the moment. Its purpose is merely to identify challenges that the competition law community will likely face in coming years at the interface with IP laws and areas worthy of research. With this goal in mind, the paper is structured as follows. Part II of provides a very brief recapitulation of the tensions between, and common goals of IP and competition policy. Part III reviews how the interface between IP and competition laws and policies has evolved throughout the years, concluding with a description of the current international consensus regarding this interface. Part IV then addresses current areas of tension between IP and competition. Part V concludes.

Contents: Preface PART I: ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS OF COMPETITION LAW 1. Are People Self-interested? The Implications of Behavioral Economics on Competition Policy Maurice E. Stucke 2. Consumer Choice as the Best Way to Recenter the Mission of Competition Law Robert H. Lande 3. Protecting Consumer Choice: Competition and Consumer Protection Law Together Neil W. Averitt 4. Is Competition Law Part of Consumer Law? Paul L. Nihoul PART II: INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTIONS AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 5. Resale Price Maintenance: A Reassessment of its Competitive Harms and Benefits Marina Lao 6. The Leegin Case: A US Antitrust Chief Event versus a Storm in a European Teacup? Josef Bejcek 7. Competition Law Issues Concerning Related Markets and their Treatment under EU Competition Law Thomas Eilmansberger 8. A Comparative Look at the Competition Law Control of State-owned Enterprises and Government in China Deborah Healey 9. Australia's Criminalization of Cartels: Will it be Contagious? Caron Beaton-Wells PART III: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW 10. Patent Ambush Strategies and Article 102 TFEU Andreas Fuchs 11. Three Statutory Regimes at Impasse: Reverse Payments in Pay-for-Delay Settlement Agreements between Brand-name and Generic Drug Companies Rudolph J.R. Peritz 12. Patent Ambush and Reverse Payments: Comments Gustavo Ghidini 13. Intellectual Property in Competition: How to Promote Dynamic Competition as a Goal Josef Drexl 14. Industrial Standards and Technology Pools: A Regulatory Challenge for EU Competition Law Steven Anderman PART IV: PROMOTING COMPETITION POLICY NATIONALLY AND ACROSS BORDERS 15. International Antitrust Solutions: Discrete Steps or Causally Linked? Michal S. Gal 16. Penumbras of European Union Competition Law: External Governance, Extraterritoriality, and the Shifting Borderlands of the Internal Market Clifford A. Jones 17. The Role of Non-governmental Organizations in the Development of Competition Law Albert A. Foer Index

Part One Introduction 1 Introduction and Framework for Analysis I. Introduction II. General Approach to the Interrelationship between Competition and Public Procurement Law III. Aim of the Study IV. Structure of the Study and General Overview V. Methodology: An Eclectic and Heuristic Multi-Disciplinary and Functional Approach to EU Law VI. Normative Assumptions VII. Delimitation of the Study: Exclusions and Limitations Part Two Foundations and Principles: The Economic and Legal Basics of Public Procurement and Competition Law 2 An Economic Approach to Public Procurement and Competition I. Introduction II. Types of 'Public Procurement Markets' III. Economic Dimensions of Public Procurement IV. The Role of Public Authorities as Purchasing and Contracting Authorities V. Public Procurement as a Market Failure: Difficulties in Recreating a Competitive Scenario and Competition- Restricting Effects 60 VI. Conclusions to this Chapter 3 Basics of Competition and Public Procurement Regulation I. Introduction II. Principles Common to Competition and Public Procurement Law as Two Sets of Economic Regulation III. The Goal(s) of Competition Law IV. Goals of Public Procurement V. Conclusions to this Chapter: Common Goals of Competition Law and Public Procurement Conclusions to Part Two: Legal and Economic Normative Foundations of a More Competition-Oriented Public Procurement System Part Three General Part: The Building Blocks of a Framework for the Competition Analysis of Public Procurement 4 EU Competition Law and Public Procurement: The Inability of EU Competition Rules to Rein in Anti-Competitive Public Procurement I. Introduction II. The Inability of Rules on the Grant of State Aid and Special or Exclusive Rights to Tackle Anti-Competitive Public Procurement III. The Inapplicability of 'Core' EU Antitrust Rules to Public Procurement: A Jurisprudentially Created Gap in EU Competition Law IV. The Insufficiency of State Action Doctrine to Capture Most of the Anti-Competitive Public Procurement Regulations and Practices V. Preliminary Conclusions: The Insufficiency of Current Competition Institutions and Potential Improvements to Achieve Better Results VI. A Revision of Current Doctrine to Achieve Better Results (1): A More Economic Approach to the Concept of 'Economic Activity' in the Public Procurement Field VII. A Revision of Current Doctrine to Achieve Better Results (2): Setting the Proper Bounds to the State Action Doctrine VIII. Conclusions to this Chapter 5 The Principle of Competition Embedded in the EU Public Procurement Directives I. Introduction II. The Competition Principle Embedded in the pre-2014 EU Public Procurement Directives III. The Principle of Competition Consolidated in Article 18(1) of Directive 2014/24: A Critical Assessment of the Interpretative Difficulties it Creates IV. Implications of the Competition Principle for the Shaping of Public Procurement Rules by Member States: The General Obligation to Develop a Pro-Competitive Public Procurement Framework V. The Principle of Equal Treatment and the Principle of Competition Distinguished VI. Conclusions to this Chapter Part Four Analysis of Competition Distortions Caused by Public Procurement 6 A Critical Assessment of the 2014 EU Public Procurement Directives and the Existing Case Law from a Competition Perspective: Preventing Competitive Distortions by the Public Buyer I. Introduction II. A Competition Appraisal of Potential Distortions Derived from Public Procurement Processes III. Two Examples of Potential Distortions Derived from the Exercise of Public Entities' Market Power IV. Conclusions to this Chapter 7 Complementary Proposals for the Development of a More Competition-Oriented Public Procurement Framework I. Introduction II. Complementary Proposals Aimed at Limiting Publicly Created Restraints of Competition III. Complementary Proposals Aimed at Limiting Privately Created Restraints of Competition IV. Complementary Measures Aimed, in General, at Strengthening the Relationships between Competition and Procurement Authorities V. Conclusions to this Chapter Part V General Conclusions 8 Conclusions: Towards a More Competition-Oriented Procurement System References

The objectives of competition policy and the application of competition law need defining and redefining along with changing structures of the economy and the maturing of the competition authority. Market structures associated with digital technology and globalization are often not in consonance with the prevalent law framed in economic analysis of traditional product markets. Antitrust interventions by the competition authorities are caught in a bind as was the case with the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Act, 2002. The emphasis on monopolistic competition, or on oligopolistic markets, as anti-competitive, which marked the earlier days of implementation of competition laws, is at variance with the prevalent monopolistic structures of platform markets or technology firms and the market for ideas. Competition authorities are grappling with identifying anti-competitive activities of these markets which tip towards monopolistic structures. In the process there has been a churning of possible diverse antitrust abuses and, as competition law grapples to incorporate these new market structures, there is another churn that is slowly emerging as a major concern — that of convergence of competition policy and public interest. This is an area in antitrust literature which is yet to receive sufficient attention. The core of antitrust intervention — that competition benefits consumers — is undisputed and perhaps axiomatic but what is not axiomatic is that monopolistic market structures can also lead to enhancing public welfare. Emergent trends towards monopolistic markets suggest a rethink of competition policy and law and their convergence for public interest. The focus of this article is on the importance of convergence of competition policy, competition law and public interest in new and emergent markets. It raises questions: Is there convergence or divergence between policy and law and public interest? What is public interest? Do consumers represent public interest and, if so, which set of consumers? Are innovation and technological development, which are part of public interest, also in the ambit of competition policy or are they in the realm of competition law? This is another question which has become acute in recent times. In India and the BRICS group, where usage of internet on smart phones is high, the convergence between competition policy, law and public interest suggests antitrust intervention is guided by public interest.

This chapter will review competition policy and law (CPL) in ASEAN and provide some lessons for improving legal technical assistance (LTA) on CPL to ASEAN and intensifying intra-ASEAN cooperation in competition law enforcement. In 2021 Cambodia finally enacted its competition law and all ASEAN Member States have established respective competition law regimes. While they share various common features in the texts of the laws, the degree of implementation varies. The independence of competition authorities is one of the underlying causes of this difference and the lack of enforcement resources and expertise is crucial, particularly for CLMV Countries. The chapter will propose Japan Fair Trade Commission to extend LTA based on its experiences of the Antimonopoly Act enforcement for 75 years. Intra-ASEAN cooperation on CPL could support the efforts by young competition authorities in CLMV Countries to implement respective competition laws and coordinate enforcement activities to address anticompetitive mergers and other practices with regional dimension. In this context, the chapter will also examine the future developments of ASEAN-wide CPL, comparing with EU competition law and its institution.

Innovation is central to competition policy. Indeed, in some industries, it is the primary means by which firms compete. The metaphors are dramatic: innovation is a ‘life and death matter for the firm’ and ‘a weapon in the arms race of competition’. Even more fundamentally, innovation, economists tell us, is pivotal to the capitalist economy as a whole. Baumol, in his book on innovation, declares that it is innovation that drives economic growth and that, without it, economies stagnate. Despite the well-established role of innovation in competition law and policy, however, the contribution such a perspective brings to the particular innovation issues raised in Gray’s case, the subject of discussion in other chapters, is limited. A contest between an employer and employee for intellectual property rights to an invention has clearer implications for labour, intellectual property and corporate law. The response of competition law to this issue, it seems to me, is far less clear. In broad terms, competition law and policy is concerned with the promotion of competition or, putting it in the more negative terms of competition legislation, prohibiting conduct that lessens competition.5 With this focus, competition law would seem to have little interest, in a general sense, in whether intellectual property rights are granted to an employer or an employee. It is true that there is a well-established interface between competition and intellectual property laws and, in a broad sense, some of this interaction may be relevant. This is because competition law, like intellectual property law, sees innovation as one of its key aims.

The present study aims to make comparative analysis of competition law in Pakistan and China by analyzing the leniency programs that whether or not they are in accordance with market structure or not, and investigating the mechanism to evidences while applying leniency policies and its value in competition law. The study adopts qualitative data analysis in order to analyze the respective aims and objective. It is found out by this research that progressive and unconventional are very important to be taken by both countries in order to ingeniously enforce competition law. Although competition law is supposed to prevent anti competition rituals and practices by nurturing free and fair competition in the market. It promotes a greater competition in the market by safeguarding customers against inaccurate means, which are adopted by firms. Therefore, competition law can be regarded as highly essential for regulating businesses by ensuring producer and consumer welfare. It ultimately promotes healthy growth of the economy and social justice. While on the other hand, a huge budget is entailed by investigation procedures which have been regarded as a huge financial resources’ loss by experts. In addition to this, there is also a greater risk of surcharges of violation, punishment and legal costs, which sometimes lead to harm corporate image. Moreover, the leniency programs in both Pakistan and China cover administrative liability only. Therefore, it is important to voluntarily comply with competition rules, regulations and laws, which would play an immensely significant role in minimizing the social costs which occur due to this law enforcement. Qualitative research methodology has been applied to the following article.

It was towards the end of the nineteenth century that the first competition (antitrust) laws were enacted in the Western, industrialised countries namely Canada (1889) and the United States (1890). It is interesting to observe that a hundred years later, several developing and transitional market economies are embracing competition law. Since 1990 approximately 35 countries have amended, enacted or are in the process of adopting competition laws. However the underlying basis for the renewed interest in this field of economic policy differs between the two periods. The concern at the end of the nineteenth century was to prevent increased levels of industry and aggregate concentration, which could give rise to the exercise of market power and undue economic-political influence. The competition laws were passed during a period of unprecedented corporate merger and acquisition activity, consolidations and the formation of trusts. In contrast, competition laws in developing and transitional market economies are being adopted in an environment where economic activity is already highly concentrated, mainly due to past government policies and interventions. These laws are now seen as instruments to accelerate the transformation process, where economic activity is primarily determined by private ownership and market forces instead of state ownership and control.KeywordsCompetition PolicyConsumer WelfareState EnterpriseCompetition AuthorityTransitional EconomyThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

It is indicated that each state must ensure fair competition in its market in order to support economic growth. This provision is also relevant for the European Union, within which the primary importance is to ensure free competition for the further development of a single system of circulation of goods, works and services, promotion of innovation and creativity, job creation and increased competitiveness, as all this is necessary for the EU to compete in global economy. This article provides a general analysis of the correlation and interaction between the provisions of intellectual property law and the provisions of competition law in the European Union (EU). In particular, the author examines the peculiarities of legal regulation of economic competition and intellectual property protection at the EU level, the state of compliance with EU competition law in the process of exercising and protecting intellectual property rights, and the role of court decisions in determining the balance between intellectual property protection and competition law requirements. The author emphasises that despite different objectives, competition law and intellectual property law have a common basis and therefore actively interact, i.e. these two systems are synergistic. The author analyses possible options for the relationship between protection against unfair competition and intellectual property laws, including the means that would reduce the often existing «tension» between them. Due to the need for a common regulatory framework to ensure that laws are in line with dynamic trade practices, the EU’s unfair competition laws are mostly flexible and general in nature. The author identifies the measures currently being taken by the EU to optimise the rules in this area. The author concludes that intellectual property protection, as well as effective antitrust regulation, are the most important legal mechanisms created to ensure economic growth based on the development and expanded use of innovations. The author also examines the measures currently being taken by the EU to optimize the rules in this area. It is concluded that the general trend of further development and improvement of interaction between antitrust and intellectual property legislation in the EU should be, first of all, overcoming regulatory and institutional dispersion.

Competition law provides the formation and protection of free competition. Modern market economy is the basis of the principle of free competition. Free competition provides an effective utilization of resources, price goes down, saving to reduce costs, find new technologies and their use in production. Desired markets, although a perfect competition market, because of market failures rather than the ideal situation monopolies, cartels can occur. At this stage, competition policies become important because they provide an efficient resource allocation, and constitutes an important element in raising the level of social welfare. Competition law is state intervention tool in order to establish and maintain free competition in the economy. Competition laws is seen as the constitution of the economy. In Russia, first competition authority was created in 1990 and the Law “On Competiton and Ristriction of Monopolistic Activity on Goods Markets” passed in 1991. After the OECD Peer Rewiew Report on Russia’s Competition Policy and Law, competition authority was abolished, new Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) established in 2004. Also new competition law passed in 2006. In Turkey, competition law passed in 1994, Turkish Competiton Authority was established in 1997. The aim of this study is to analyze competition law rules is implemented in Turkey and Russia. Also Examples of decisions issued by the Turkish competition authority and FAS Russia will be presented.

Recent works in legal scholarship have shifted the focus of competition law to the economic analysis of law. Yet today we face the revival of the fairness concerns in competition polices. This article concerns itself with the nature of the interdependent relationship between competition law and consumer protection law as ancillary to the necessary relationship between law and morality. Hereby it aims to revisit their raison d’être to discuss that fairness and equity do not lack economic foundations. For an efficient market structure, private property and good faith in contractual relations are essential. This article aims to scrutinise the latter, while showing its objective criteria: Honesty, trust and reasonableness, as the moral essence of competition and consumer protection laws. These criteria provide efficient means to address moral aspects of fairness in competition law as it is best illustrated within its relation to consumer protection without compromising their economic foundations. Keywords: competition law, consumer protection, fairness, good faith, honesty, trust

The protection of the interests of consumers is a central aspect of all modern competition laws as well as a direct aim of consumer protection laws. However, despite being complementary in many ways, competition and consumer protection laws cover different issues and employ different methods to achieve their goals. While consumer protection rules are built upon the premise that consumers are the weaker party to transactions and should be directly protected for this reason in their dealings with traders through certain consumer rights, competition law only indirectly protects the consumers’ economic well-being by ensuring that the markets are subject to effective competition. This article explores the interplay between consumer protection and competition law in the Indian context with some comparison with the EU position, where relevant. After an examination of the relevant legislation and case law, the article finds that given that the mandate of the Competition Commission of India is to prevent practices having an adverse effect on competition, in cases of overlap between consumer protection and competition laws, the Authority should act only on the basis of adverse effects on competition. The treatment of ‘unfair trade practices’ is used to demonstrate the appropriateness of this approach.

The purpose of this paper is to identify a method to create a balance between competition laws and the patent protection regime so as to promote innovation. The relationship between competition law and the law relating to intellectual property has long been recognized to be a turbulent one. The traditional perspective adopted towards the relationship between the subjects is that one is opposed to the other; where intellectual property laws encourage and protect monopoly, competition laws seek to curb and control it. This research focuses on the possibility of change from the conventional view relating to competition law and intellectual property law by making the approach to these two subjects more innovation centric. The paper examines these apparently paradoxical disciplines from the perspective of innovation and finds that both intellectual property laws and competition laws have a common objective, which is to increase innovation. This paper undertakes conceptual research in order to develop new concepts and to re-interpret the existing ones. It analyses various economic theories of development and the existing conceptual framework pertaining to competition and patent laws. Finally, the paper suggests amendments in the existing law and proposes a new legal and policy framework that reconciles both the fields so as to promote effective innovation crucial for economic development and trade in India.