In this issue:
-
Abuse of dominance cases in Europe
The CFI Decision in Microsoft: Why the European Commission’s guidelines on abuse of dominance are necessary and possible
This note focuses on the “refusal to deal†part of the CFI’s Microsoft decision to derive some conclusions on the advisability and the possibility for the European Commission to adopt guidelines on the enforcement of Article 82.
The Microsoft Judgment: Article 82 Revisited?
The CFI’s Microsoft judgment takes a rather broad approach in applying the case law established in the Magill, IMS Health, and Hoffmann-La-Roche judgments before it.
-
The role of competition policy in the APEC
-
New standards for proving market dominance in Korea
Analysis of the Korean Supreme Court decision concerning “unreasonableness” in the abuse of a market dominant position case involving Posco
On Nov. 22, 2007, Korea’s Supreme Court rendered its decision in the market dominant position case against Posco. The significance of the Court’s decision will be made clearer as the KFTC turns to other market dominance investigations such as those of the major foreign companies Intel and Qualcomm.
Should Intent Be a Separate Element of an Abuse of Market Dominance?
In its ruling in POSCO, the Korean Supreme Court held that evidence of specific intent must be proven for there to be a violation of abuse of market dominance. Despite its historical significance in the treatment of market dominance cases in Korea, the judgment leaves something to be desired.
