Table Of Content

Y R A R B LI W A L N KI S A L A R O B COMPETITION POLICY Volume 1 2003 Professor Trebilcock " ~ ‘'" r ^ •’Wu.vwu. • - ; : ■ • ‘r'>v i ■: ' 5 11 Lrtli 5 9 1 s’ i \ «TV Of LM ^to £ I COMPETITION POLICY Volume 1 2003 Professor Trebilcock Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from University of Toronto https://archive.org/details/competitionpolic01treb COMPETITION POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS Useful Websites (as of July 1, 1999): Canadian Competition Bureau Website: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ctol250e/html Canadian Competition Policy Page: http://csgb.ubc.ca/ccpp/frame l.htm U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division: http://usdoj.gov/atr/index.html European Directorate General IV: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg04/index en.htm I) INTRODUCTION Read Chapter One, “Canadian Competition Policy in Historical Perspective” in Michael Trebilcock, Ralph A. Winter, Paul Collins, and Edward M. Iacobucci, The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002) at 3 Read Chapter Two, “Basic Economic Concepts in Competition Policy” in Trebilcock, et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 37 II) AGREEMENTS AMONG COMPETITORS I Read Chapter 3, “Multi-Firm Conduct: Horizontal Agreements” in Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 86 Atlantic Sugar Refineries Co. Ltd, et al. v. A.G. Can., II-1 (1980) 54 C.C.C. (2d) 373 (S.C.C.) Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, v. Commission of II-11 the European Communities European Court of Justice, [1972] ECR 619 Interstate Circuit Inc, et al. v. United States, 11-21 306 U.S. 208., (1938) III) AGREEMENTS AMONG COMPETITORS II Read Chapter 3, “Multi-Firm Conduct: Horizontal Agreements” in Trebilcock et al.. The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 86 R. v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society (1993) 49 C.P.R. HI-1 (3d) 289 (N.S.S.C.) Broadcast Music, Inc, v. Columbia Broadcasting System, III-23 55 F.R.D. 292 (1972, U.S. Dist.) United States v. Sealv Inc. 388 U.S. 350 (1967), as edited in HI-29 Breit, W. and K. Elizinga (eds.). The Antitrust Casebook: Milestones in Economic Regulation (Dryden Press, 1982) Transocean Marine Paint Association, Commission Decision HI-31 67/454, O.J.L. 163/10 (July 20, 1967) ACF Chemiefarma v. Commission, Case 41/69 119701 ECR 661 HI-36 Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. State of California, HI-45 509 U.S. 764 (1993) IV) MERGERS I Read Chapter 4, “The Merger Review Process” in Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 131 United States v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, IV-1 351 U.S. 377 (1956) Canada (Director of Investigations & Research) v. Southam Inc.. IV-11 [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748 Canada (Comissioner of Competition) v. Superior Propane Inc. IV-25 [2002] C.C.T.D. No. 10 Staples. Inc, v. Federal Trade Commission. IV-57 970 F.S. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997) V) MERGERS II Read Chapter 4, “The Merger Review Process” in Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 131 Brown Shoe Co. v. United States. 365 U.S. 825 (1961) V-l United States v. General Dynamics Corp. et al.. 415 U.S. 486 (1974) V-8 United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., Eimco Secoma, S.A. V-18 and Ov Tampella AB. 731 F.S. 3 (1990), affirmed 908 F.2d Mannesmann/Vallourec/Ilva, QJ No L 102/15 (1994) V-28 Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Superior Propane Inc. V-37 [2001] F.C.J. No. 455 Aerospatiale-Alenia/De Havilland, Commission Decision 91/619. V-51 O.J.L. 334/42 Boeing Companv/McDonnell Douglas Corporation, V-57 FTC (No. 971-0051) “Commission Clears the Merger Between Boeing and V-62 McDonnell Douglas Under Conditions and Obligations”, European Commission, July 1997 (Press Release) VI) PREDATORY PRICING Read Chapter 5, “Predatory Pricing and Price Discrimination” in Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 288 R. v. Hoffman-La Roche Limited. (1980) 29 O.R. (2d) 164 VI-1 Brooke Group Ltd, v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. VI-18 509 U.S. 209 (1993) Akzo Chemi BY v. EC Commission, [1993] 5 CMLR 215 VI-31 VII) PRICE DISCRIMINATION Read Chapter 5: “Predatory Pricing and Price Discrimination” in Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 288 Utah Pie Company v. Continental Banking Company et al. VII-1 87 S. Ct. 126 (1967) Federal Trade Commission v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37 (1948) VII-12 VIII) VERTICAL RESTRAINTS I Read Chapter 6, “Vertical Restraints: Intrabrand Competition” in Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 373 Resale Price Maintenance R. v. H.D. Lee, (1980) 57 C. P.R. (2d) 186 VEI-l Exclusive Territories Consten and Grundig v. Commission Case 56, VIII-12 58/64 [1966] E.C.R. 299 IX) VERTICAL RESTRAINTS II Exclusivity Read Chapter 7, “Vertical Restraints: Interbrand Competition” in Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 439 Director of Investigation and Research v. Bombardier Ltd. IX-1 (1980) 53 C.P.R. (2d) 47 Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co. et al., IX-15 365 U.S. 320 (1960) Canada (Director Investigations & Research) v. IX-21 D & B Companies of Canada, 64 C.P.R. (3d) 216 Tying R.T.P.C.. D.I.R. v. BBM Bureau of Management. IX-57 (1981)60 C.P.R. (2d) 26 X) ABUSE OF DOMINANCE Read Chapter 8, “Abuse of Dominance” in Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy at 504 Canada (Director of Investigation & Research) v. Nutrasweet Co., X-l 32 C.P.R. (3d) 1 (1990) United States v. Microsoft Corp., X-20 No. 00-5212 (D.C. Cir. 06/28/2001) United States v. Grinnell Corp.. 384 U.S. 563 (1966) X-31 United Brands v. The Commission, Case 27/76, X-39 [1987] E.C.R. 349 XI) APPENDIX: STATUTES Canadian Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34. XI-1 (See Bureau website for complete Act.) E.C. Treaty Articles, from Van der Woude, Jones, and Lewis, XI-15 E.C. Competition Law Handbook (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1996) Selected Antitrust Statutes, U.S., from Sullivan and Hovenkamp, XI-22 Antitrust Law, Policy, and Procedure, 2nd ed. (Charlottesville: Michie, 1989)