PL EN


2017 | 10(16) | 107-126
Article title

The Role of Economic Efficiency in Competition Law

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
The main focus of the paper is the function of economics in the current application of competition law. While advocating further economization of the law, it is seen as necessary to widen the extent to which aspects of economic efficiency encompassing static and dynamic efficiency are taken into consideration in an antitrust analysis. Much attention is devoted to these issues, while clarifying what is meant by them, how they are to be understood and implemented in the practice of antitrust authorities, as well as discussing their importance for the promotion of innovation. It is noted that accounting for the economic efficiency aspects differently in the light of competition law allows for the assessment of the market behavior of dominant companies, which traditionally has been seen as anticompetitive. This main issue of the paper is analyzed extensively and explained using the case of Microsoft, a company accused by the US and EU antitrust authorities of abusing its dominant position on the market of operating systems in that it integrated the sale of its base product Windows OS exclusively with other applications (Media Player and Internet Explorer). The differences presented in the research part of the paper as to the way Microsoft was treated by these authorities originated in their different methodology of analysis and assessment of the effects of the sales model launched by Microsoft for products offered to the PC manufacturers and their users, in spite of the US and EU antitrust authorities adopting the same evaluation standard – consumer welfare. Aspects of dynamic efficiency adequate in the assessment of the behavior of innovative firms holding a dominant position proved to be deciding. On the other side of the Atlantic, taking into account the aspects of dynamic efficiency was crucial in coming up with a lighter assessment of Microsoft’s tying compared to the European authorities’ assessment which was based largely on the structural analysis, where the benefits arising from dynamic efficiency are not visible. It is clear from the decisions made by the Commission that it favours regulation over effects generated by competition forces at a later time.
Year
Volume
Pages
107-126
Physical description
Dates
published
2017-12-31
Contributors
References
  • Bagdziński, T. (2008). Wiązanie Internet Explorer z Windows na tle historii postępowań antytrustowych przeciwko Microsoftowi w Stanach Zjednoczonych. In: D. Miąsik, T. Skoczny, M. Surdek (ed.), Sprawa Microsoft - studium przypadku. Prawo konkurencji na rynkach nowych technologii. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania: Warszawa.
  • Bork, R.H. (1993). The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy At War With Itself. Free Press: New York.
  • Cameron, A. (1996). Innovation and Economic Growth. Center for Economic Perfomance Discussion Papers. No. 277. Retrieved from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/20685/1/Innovation_and_Economic_Growth.pdf (20.12.2016).
  • Carltone, D.W. and Perloff, J.M. (2006). Modern Industrial Organization. Pearson.
  • European Commission (2009). Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections to Microsoft on the tying of Internet Explorer to Windows (Press release). Brussels.
  • D’Aveni, R.A (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. Free Press: New York.
  • De Soto, J.H. (2009). The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency. New York–Abingdon. Retrieved from: http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/the-theory-of-dynamic-efficiency (20.12.2016).
  • Devlin, A. and Jacobs, M. (2010). Antitrust Divergence and the Limits of Economics. Northwestern University Law Review, 104(1).
  • Jorde, T.M. and Teece, D.J. (1990). Innovation and Cooperation: Implications for Competition and Antitrust. Journal of Economic Perspective, 4(3), 75-96.
  • Jurczyk, Z. (2012). Kartele w polityce konkurencji Unii Europejskiej. C.H. Beck: Warszawa.
  • Jurczyk, Z. (2016a). Kartele a ekonomizacja. In: T. Skoczny (ed.), Prawo konkurencji. 25 lat. Wolters Kluwer: Warszawa.
  • Jurczyk, Z. (2016b). Co dalej z minimalnym cenami odsprzedaży. In: A. Fornalczyk, T. Skoczny (ed.). Ekonomia ochrony konkurencji. Ograniczenia wertykalne. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania UW: Warszawa, https://doi.org/10.7172/978-83-65402-23-3.2016.wwz.6
  • Kathuria, V. (2015). A conceptual framework to identify dynamic efficiency. European Competition Journal, 11(2-3), 319-339, https://doi.org/10.1080/17441056.2015.1060006
  • Kotler, Ph. (2016). Twarzą w twarz z kapitalizmem. Realne rozwiązania dla niezdrowego systemu ekonomicznego. MT Biznes: Warszawa.
  • Kozuń-Cieślak, G. (2013). Efektywność – rozważania nad istotą i typologią, Kwartalnik Kolegium Ekonomiczno-Społecznego Studia i Prace, 4, 13-42.
  • Lemley, M.A (1997). The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law. Texas Law Review, 75.
  • OECD (2012). The Role of Efficiency Claims in Antitrust Proceedings, Competition Law &Policy. Retrived from: http://www.occd.org/competition/EfficiencyClaims2012.pdf (20.12.2016 ).
  • Ponsold. J.F. and David, Ch.D. (2007). Comparison between U.S. and E.U. Antitrust Treatment of Tying Claims Against Microsoft: When Should the Bundling of Computer Software Be Permitted? Nortwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 27(2), 421-451.
  • Szymczak, W. and Szadkowski, N. (2016). Rola ekonomii w prawie konkurencji – teoria i praktyka polskiego organu antymonopolowego. In: A. Fornalczyk, T. Skoczny (ed.). Ekonomia ochrony konkurencji. Ograniczenia wertykalne. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania UW: Warszawa, https://doi.org/10.7172/978-83-65402-23-3.2016.wwz.6
  • Sroczyński, J. (2016). O potrzebie (i pułapkach) bardziej interdyscyplinarnego podejścia do publicznego i prywatnego prawa konkurencji. In: T. Skoczny (ed.), Prawo konkurencji. 25 lat. Wolters Kluwer: Warszawa.
  • Sroczyński, J. (2016). Ekonomia behawioralna jak narzędzie analityczne w prawie konkurencyjności, [in:]. A. Fornalczyk, T. Skoczny (ed.). Ekonomia ochrony konkurencji. Ograniczenia wertykalne. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania UW: Warszawa, https://doi.org/10.7172/978-83-65402-23-3.2016.wwz.6
  • The Unilateral Conduct Working Group, Report on the Objectives of Unilateral Conduct Laws, Assessment of Dominance/Substantial Market Power and State Created Monopolies, (2007) 6th Annual Conference of ICI, Moscow
  • Waller, S.W. (2006). Microsoft and Trinko. A Tale of Two Courts. Loyola University Chicago, School of Law. LAWeCommons. Retrived from. http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=facpubs (29.05.2017).
  • Williamson, O.E, (1968). Economies as an Antitrust Defence: The Welfare Tradeoffs, American Economic Review, 58.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-60e3836e-f1b8-4392-b4a2-c2156d5be0cc
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.