Concurrences Revue des droits de la concurrence

Jon LEIBOWITZ: Priorities and challenges for the US Federal Trade Commission

Interview l Concurrences N° 1-2010 www.concurrences.com

Jon LEIBOWITZ l Chairman of the US Federal Trade Commission of Law New York University School 1984 in Washington Attorney inprivate practice 1984-1986 Herb Kohl Chief CounseltoSenator 1989-2000 Antitrust Subcommittee Sta! Director for theUSSenate Democratic ChiefCounseland 1997-2000 Association ofAmerica A!airs for theMotionPicture Vice-President for Congressional 2000-2004 Commissioner attheUSFTC 2004 Trade Commission Chairman oftheUSFederal 2009 Chairman oftheUSFederalTrade Commission the President oftheAutorité delaconcurrence, Paris. Interview Yon, Adviser for International A!airs intheO"ceof This interview hasbeenconductedby Stéphanie Concurrences N°1-2010 Jon L EIBOWITZ

I

Int erview

I 2 to withdraw theSection 2Report. substantive of issues and risks. This is illustrated by the new administration’s decision Jon 1 anticompetitive patent settlementsmust bestopped. largelyagreeing thatthese brief amicus an led ! Division Antitrust the and General Solicitor the administration, Obama review.the Court Under Supreme for request Justice and the Solicitor General opposed the the FTC’sDepartment of Division of Antitrust The anticompetitive. settlement patent a !nding opinion Commission a reversed Circuit 11th the 2005, pay-for-delayIn settlements.includes area third A the Act. Sherman conduct by reached substantial necessarily not more ways in markets, potentially important more challenge economically in to it used has Commission the statutes.Now,however,antitrust the in gaps technical in lling ! for primarily used was and on years, recent ban in 5’sscope limited Section given wascompetition” Act. of FTC methods the “unfair of 5 Section involves change of area second A their assessment ofsubstantive issuesandrisks” “Today thetwo [US]agencies are much closerin it. criticized us of three however,report, the in and joined FTC the of member single marketeffects.a Not actual or circumstances for regard little with pricing, predatoryfor test bright-line loyaltywoulddiscounts probably the wereunder acceptablethey legal be as long as that suggested it example, For overenforcement. avoiding on weight great placed it report, that issued administration last the under Department Justice the When The evolving approach to this issue is illustrated by the history of the Section 2 Report. that of ef!ciency willbepassedontoconsumers. !ts bene the whether about think enough to not have also is ef We!ciency. It maximize other. to the on power market and underenforcement of risks the minimize to want also we but hand, one the on overenforcement and inef!ciency we need strike a balance.more of We still want to avoid the problemsuncertainty, of chill ef!cient business conduct. Today, however,might overenforcementthat I think we haveof a sense thatrisk more of avoidthe to was task important most the that sense a was there administration last the uncertainty.Under and risk of problems inevitablethe approaching U.S.are waythe agencies the in change a is there First, change. of areas signi!cant three noticed havehowever, I said, that All direction. quick of to changes resistant structurally is which FTC, the like agency bipartisan member, consensus view governs most antitrust situations. This is particularly a true multi- of administrations. broadA of shift a in change alwayscontinuitythan is moreThere administrations sofar? inantitrustWhat majorchanges enforcement have you seenbetween thetwo you served asCommissionerundertheBushadministration. Since2004 2009. You were appointed Chairman oftheFTCby President ObamaonMarch 2, Trade Commission challenges for theUSFederal

J on

F T Pr under ordham hese L ess EIBOWITZ

r

ar Section elease, e

Law discussed 1 : Priorities andchallenges for the USFederal Trade Commission L

FT

2 School

of C

EIBOWITZ

Commissioner

the a t

(Sept. mor

Sherman e

length 24, 2

Today assessment their twoin the agenciesmucharecloser 2009), Act” s

R in eact

(Sept. m

y available

to “R

De emarks 8,

partment 2008),

at : Prioritiesand

http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/leibowitz/090924fordhamspeech.pdf. to

available the

of

36

J ustice th

Annual

at

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/09/section2.shtm.

R eport

Confer

“Competition ence

on

Inter

and

national

Monopo

Antitr ly:

Single-Fir ust

La w

and m

Conduct

P olicy,” 1

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art. L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment and up to a € 300 000 fine (Art. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits of Art. L 122-5 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle and DRM protection. to any decrease in our merger enforcementactivity.merger!scal our In in decreaseany to led not has downturn economic the that noting worth It’s all under consumers to bene!cial circumstances, ingoodtimesandbad. is that That demands. something consumer market is to fair free, responsive a is protecting that of economy business the in is FTC The unchanged. remains mission general our sense one In the headofFTCfor theyears ahead, and, ifso, how? Has theglobaleconomicdownturn shifted your priorities as issues raised intheinternetage. protection consumer and privacy protecting to approaches downturn, targeting !nancial the scams to sector,due vulnerable made tech consumers high the in competition and care,health – further pay-fordiscussing be delay settlements increasedfunds to address the priority the areas that we have of and I hope to much allocate to expect We work. FTC’s the holds Congress which in importance the of measure a is this that hope and work, our do better to budget increased havegratito an aretimes, !ed we economic dif !cult these In dedicated, passionate individuals. work with the entire FTC team, which is a fantastic group of to course,privilege a it’sand honor an Of DeSanti. Susan is Planning Policy of Of!ce our Tom.Finally,heading Will is Counsel the General new Our Protection. Consumer in of Bureau Harwood Chuck and Rich Jessica Vladeck, and David Competition; of Bureau the in Armstrong Norm and Levitas, Pete Feinstein, Rich Economics; of Bureau the in staff of !ces the of agency – Joe Farrell and Howard Shelanski Wehavealso major the run newto outstanding people some the fullSenate hasnotyet voted onthem. December 15, and has approved them on unanimously,nominees although both on hearings held Committee Commerce Senate The missed. sorely be initiatives,privacywill she and has She term. her matters,manyimportant to including contributedespecially conclude will Harbour Jones Commissioner Pamela arrive, Commissioners new the when said, new agency.That multi-member valuablea of strengths great the bring of one is which will Commission, the to Obama experiences and perspectives nominees President Commissioner by two named the the con!rmed, to people new If talented agency. of addition the by enhanced be to going is action effective and wise take to ability Our will seemore initiatives inthefuture. this.the Intel complaint are just one exampleI expectof you in elements 5 effects.producepracticalSection to The begin enough for its own projects to move through the pipeline and The us. long of!ce in for been now has agency year the of important management new an be to out turned has 2009 budget increase to beallocated? been approved by theSenate yet? How doyou expect the million increase initsbudget for 2010. Have theseactions !lled. Second, theagency issaidto have received a$33 the Commission, seniorstaff andimportant positionswere were nominated by President Obamato benew members of functioning oftheFTC. First, Julie Brill andEdithRamirez brought goodnewsThe endoftheyear for 2009 the Concurrences N°1-2010

I

Int erview

I

J on L EIBOWITZ : Priorities and challenges for the USFederal Trade Commission have brought hundreds additional of law enforcement actions.partners on these mortgage modi!cation cases, and our partners enforcement actions with our state and federal partners and partners federal and state our with enforcementactions acted law coordinated has through scams, FTC these The stop hole. to aggressively a into and deeper hopes them people’s drive raise then They nothing. deliver they but modify their home mortgages to make them more affordable, consumers help to promise They work-at-home. to chance job placement, access to free government grant promisemoney, increasingly or the scams new Their money. of out them bilk consumers’playworriesand on to opportunity another presents economy challenging today’sartists, con To meet. are accounts ends making about anxiety tremendous retirement consumers record-setting causing disappearing credit, and shrinking foreclosures, unemployment, Rising problem areas. wehave programsspeci!c our adjusted addressto newthose policy,general stable a of framework the abuses.within So, of kinds new to vulnerable consumers made has downturn As a matter day-to-dayof case selection, however, the present administrative or lings,! which isarecord number for asingleyear. court federal in lings ! injunction either actions,mergerseven authorized Commission the 2009 year 3 Operation with instance,For avoidfraud. and recognize to need they tools the them give to agency consumers to the out reaches activities, enforcement law our to addition In affordable. substantially more payments mortgage monthlyconsumers’ mortgage make modi that would obtain! would thatcations they claimed falsely who artists scam challenging cases 28 Moreover,since thehousing crisis began theFTC hasbrought charges onconsumers’ credit ordebit cards. unauthorized putting or services; debt-reductionphony and overhypedof get-rich-quick plans, bogus government grants, promotions jobs; non-existent of promises as such schemes, of variety a through takedownturn economic the to of advantage trying scammers targeted cases These Columbia. of District the of and states 13 Department least at by actions the Justice,and by actions enforcement law 44 FTC cases, 15 included that sweep enforcement law a Change,” ForShort “OperationJuly,example, announced in FTC the kinds ofabuses” consumers vulnerable tonew “The present downturn has made through extensive consumereducation. 5 4

See nomic cue See 2009), See change.shtm. opa/2009/07/loanlies.shtm. ,

Pr

Pr and e .g.,

ess ess

Do available

Loan

r Pr wnturn R 4 elease, We have worked closely withstateour federal and elease, ess

Modi"ca

R at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/11/stolenhope.shtm.

FT elease,

(J F uly ederal C

Crac

tion 1, F

ederal 2009), and ks

Scams

Do

Sta

wn and

a te

vailable

(J

on

Agencies Sta uly

Scammer

te 15,

Agencies a t

2009), T http://www2.ftc arget s

T rying

T

Mortg a arget vailable

to

T Mortg age ake 3

.gov/opa/2009/07/short-

a R

t Ad

elief http://www2.ftc age vantage

F Scams oreclosure

of

(No

the v.

.gov/ Eco R

24, es- 5 2 -

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art. L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment and up to a € 300 000 fine (Art. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits of Art. L 122-5 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle and DRM protection. pharmaceuti nancial services. In June 2009, the 2009, Juneservices. In !nancial rulemaking of consumers protect to of use its increased has also Commission The protection consumer organizations and around thecountry. counseling housing 5,000 than more to Spanish, in version a and video, the distributing is rescue services. foreclosure and modi!cation mortgage offering companies abusesthe byaddress will activities.other servicing The and appraisal, origination, advertising, mortgage including loan mortgage a of cycle life concerns the throughout rulemaking occurring practices the of part One proceeding loans. mortgage rulemaking on two-part a initiated Commission hrn lsos ere fo ter experiences. their from learned lessons sharing that features peopletargeted by foreclosure rescue scammers “RealPeople. Real Stories,” minute video three-and-a-half a for developed we www.ftc.gov/MoneyMatters. Additionally,at resources mortgage-related of homeowners in distress; they are featured on a new web page toolbox a FTC produced the operators, scam rescue foreclosure mortgage on into sending their money. In conjunction with our crackdown the trade, including the techniques he used to rush consumers The video features a former con-artist describing the tools of 7 6 common. too all become havesince settlements rights. Such patent of exercise lawful the merely as settlements these viewed 2005 in beginning decisions court unfortunately, permissive market. But the off stay to agreed 2004, and compensation received and !rm generic 2000 the which in Between settlements patent deals. no were these there stop to able been a took mistakenly previously had enforcement that Antitrust them. decisions of view lenient court some as of problem result a a became agreements anticompetitive These affordablecause of healthcare for allAmericans. the advance and year per billion $3.5 aboutsave consumers would settlements pay-for-delay stopping that estimate We – for the far less expensive generic drugs to become available. of payers years sometimes other – savings.wait mustsigni!cant Consumers and consumers deprive These deals market. the sweetheart of out stay companies to drug competitors generic brand-name pay which under practice the – to set a high priority on the pay-for-delayissue of agreements On your more speci!c question, the Commission is continuing approaches tothe issuesaddressed inthecurrent bills. procompetitive develop to agencies other in colleagues our will implicate competition. We look forward to working with to the !nancing issues than of competition per se, although it The general health care bill is still in #ux. It is addressed more What progress hasbeenmadewithregard to bill willhelpto tackle anticompetitive behavior inthat !eld? expertise. Doyouparticular thinktherecent U.S. healthcare The healthcare isasector industry inwhich theFTChas fraud. opportunity business on public the a educate to video released and developed Commission the Change, Short

A A vailable vailable

at at

www.ftc.gov/multimedia/video/credit/mortgage/hope-now.shtm. www.ftc.gov/multimedia/video/scam-watch/fraud-inside-look.shtm. cal issues? Concurrences N°1-2010

I

Int erview

I

J on pay-for-delay L EIBOWITZ 7 h FTC The

: Priorities and challenges for the USFederal Trade Commission

6

10 9 elcmn du AndroGel. drug replacement testosterone- its to competition delay to !rms generic two paid Pharmaceuticals Solvay which in agreements similar introducing suchafasttrack procedure? thehigh-techproduct cycle. IstheFTCof considering thespeed antitrust casestobefast-tracked becauseof Provigil. drug sleep-disorder its of version generic a selling delay to court federal in charging complaint that fourpaid had Cephalon would-be competitors February a In led ! courts. Commission the the in 2008, trend the change to ultimately help cases will these that hopeful am I and litigation, in are anticompetitive. Currently, the Commission has two cases The Commission continues to challenge settlements it believes health care for all Americans”and advance the cause of a!consumersordable about $3.5 billionfor-delay per year settlements would“We save estimate that stopping pay- 8 within ordinary proceeding infederal court. case the decide to expect twentymonths, the whichwouldthan substantially faster be would we complaint, that Intel noted the I with connection in statement warrant. my circumstances In the when speed particular with – matterhigh-tech a movingincluding anymatter– particular Informally,course,mayof Commission makepoint the a of proceedings held in federal courts. FTC’sbringthe administrative hearingsthewithlinemore in appealsfrom those indecisions. decisions issue These changes towere Commissiondeveloped the to timetables for tighter decisions in the matters initial issue before and them. cases The hearnew rules to administrativealso judges forimpose law litigation.Thenewrules signi !cantlystreamline thetimetables its recent amendments to the rules practiceof for administrativeTheCommission has addressed the issue timely of decisions in that we ought to formally set weup industry-specido fast track!c deadlines.cases whenPrompt necessary,decisions are butimportant I questionthroughout thethe suggestionlegal system, and Specialists inthemediasector have calledfor Health care reform provides the best and quickest solution quickest and best the provides reform care Health several otherinvestigations underway. ae a usata se t eiiae hs anticompetitive this behaviour industry. eliminate inthepharmaceutical to step substantial a taken provisions, and these health care reform preservespasses, Congress will havebill care health !nal the If deals. these thatban provisions includes bill House’s The problem. this to

Sta a FT caselist/0610182/080213complaint.pdf. 9341, FT t

http://www2.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0710060/index.shtm. tement C v. Watson Pharmaceuticals C v. Cephalon, Inc

available 8 n eray 09 te omsin challenged Commission the 2009, February In

of

Chair

at

http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9341/091216intelchairstatement.pdf. man

., Leibo

No .

witz 08-cv-2141

and ,

No

Commissioner . 9

h Cmiso as has also Commission The (E.D 1:09-CV .

Pa.), -09-00955

10

a

vailable R osch ,

(N

a ne Corp., Intel t .D.

http://www high-tech

Ga.

2009), .ftc.gov/os/ Dkt.

a vailable

No 3 .

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art. L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment and up to a € 300 000 fine (Art. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits of Art. L 122-5 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle and DRM protection. 14 13 12 11 the within come quite invitations doesn’t address conduct to That be collude. would to uses these the of in cases One predictable past. some in 5 Section used have We some require businesses that reasonable recognize clarityinthelaw. We limits. 2, and Section than broader is 5 however, it also imposes on Section us the duty to describe principles that extent the To can not be punished or prevented under the antitrust law.”–to make some things punishable, to prevent some things, that the FTC Act, explained: “That is the only purpose Section of 5 about this intent. Senator explicitCummins, quite Congress was violate 2. Section not might onethat of the main sponsors of furthergoesalsothatthancovers and other harmfulconduct wouldconstituteShermantheviolationAct.However, a of it methods competition,”of and covers any antitrustprohibitsFTC.theIt basicstatute“unfair the isof conduct Section 5 that happy todiscussSection 5inmore general terms, however. both Sections in our complaint. I am Intel with violations of charging are we that note to than speci!cally,thatother on The Intel case is now in litigation, so I don’t want to comment applicable insuch cases? Section 5 rather thanSection 2, andwhatlimitsare in applying Section 5? What istherationale for applying Act. Couldyou describe theFTC’s authority andapproach applied Section 5rather thanSection 2oftheSherman unilateral conduct, such asthe In recent casesinvolving potentially anticompetitive Act HSR The litigation. in just not and actions, agency all in important is Timeliness litigation” of practicefor administrative recent amendments totherules the issueoftimely decisionsinits “The Commissionhasaddressed situation). request (or! fteen days for acashtenderoffer or bankruptcy second a issue to whether determine and ling ! premerger a acquisitions. The agencies normally have thirty days to review and mergersreviewing followin to agency the for deadlines review proceeds inatimely manner. merger administrative the that ensure to attorneys outside For cases in all industries, our attemptsstaff to work with the requests are tailored to address speci!c competitive concerns. second thatensure to and electronicdata of use the with up bankruptcy). or offer tender cash a fordays ten (or merger the challenge to days thirty another have normally agencies the request,

ruptcy 51 15 15 15

Cong. U.S.C. U.S.C. U .S.C.

Code).

Rec.

§ 18a(e)(2); § 18a. § 12 18a(b)(1); ne h pris etf cmlac wt the with compliance certify parties the Once

12454 13 The FTC has improved its procedures to keep Concurrences N°1-2010

(1914).

16

16

C.F.R.

C.F .R.

§ 803.10.

§ 803.10 11

(r led poie statutory provides already Intel eferencing

I

Int case, theFTChas erview

11

U

.S.C. I

J on

§ 363(b) L EIBOWITZ

of

the : Priorities and challenges for the USFederal Trade Commission 14

Bank - 18 17 16 Section 2 violation. a of level the to rise not did conduct the thatfound also we it that and harmed consumers due unfair to its impact on standard was setting. But commitment) prior a on (reneging conduct the that found we case,royalty. that !xed In low a to patent-holder the by commitment a after technology the included organizationstandard-setting the when standard a from!rm charging high per unit royalties on a technology in We also have recently used this authority in N-Data to stop a Actcoverage.gap intheSherman a to related closely Actcaseinitspolicyandpurposes, Sherman but wouldll a ! be would action 5 Section a too Here effective.more likelyor morecoordination oligopoly make These are practices that, although not collusive in themselves, practices.facilitating address to is 5 Section of use Another “To theextent thatSection 5 is 5. Section by covered appropriately is and the Act, However, Sherman of policies collude). underlying the to violates clearly attempts conduct the not but monopolize, to (whichAct prohibits Sherman attemptsand collusion actual 15 has which cases, monopolization of enforcement effective I of continuetradition anticipatewill its thatCommission the Act. Sherman the of 2 Section under monopolization of lawexisting the on effect substantial havea to expected not is jurisprudence 5 Section distinctive a of development The Section 2 inthesameway? DOJ similarly committed to reinvigorate enforcement of state ofSection 2enforcement today? Are theFTCand Given thisfocus onSection 5, where doesthatleave the 2008. October in 5 Section on workshop a held Commission The might it than Section 2. risks, those pose monetary breadth not substantivegreater with appropriatelyconstrued be or does actions thus private and permit damages, not does 5 Section Because courts. the by construed presently as laws antitrust private unwarrantedlitigation and treble damages, by is not a the violation imposed of costs the about concerns courts’ of because that, but consumers harms that conduct stop this to than broadly more used be could 5 Section However, describe principlesandlimits” it alsoimposesonusthedutyto broader thanSection 2,however, statute. the clarify further to hopes FTC enforcement,the case with

T bc/workshops/section5/index.shtml. ftc.gov/os/caselist/0510094/index.shtm. In See, gov/os/caselist/0510008/060314agr0510008.pdf. See he

r 18 , e

r e.g.,

e Through this kind of research and study,combined and research of kind this Through Neg ecord .g.,

otiated V BMG alassis

of

tha

Music,

Da

Comm t

w ta orkshop

So

et unications

lutions, al. 17

(May

can

LL

10, be

(Mar C,

f

ound 2000)

Dkt. .

14,

on No

("ve

2006)

. the

051-0094

separate

FT

(consent),

C

w

ebsite.

consent (2007)

a vailable

See

a agreements). vailable

http://www

a t

http://www

a t

http://www .ftc.gov/ .ftc. 16 15 4 .

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art. L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment and up to a € 300 000 fine (Art. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits of Art. L 122-5 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle and DRM protection. 19 the workshop. at presentations the guide help to published were that questions twenty of list a in re#ected are Those revisiting. course, weOf do have some ideas about topics that may bear are listening,anddon’t want toprejudge theconclusions. international world, the system, and the antitrust bar. businesscolleagues Weand users of the community, academic the from hearing of midst the in Weare useful. !nd would open-ended an conduct inquiry, to and to is learn what changes workshops the users the of Guidelines the of main purposes the of One Guidelines. the to of amendments list expected a to point, this at committed, too be shouldn’tWe review? between thetwo U.S. competitionauthorities for merger clari!cation abouthow economicsectors willbeallocated only onhorizontal mergers? Doyou expect to seeany amendments to beexpected? Why focusing istheinquiry U.S. Horizontal Merger Guidelines. What are themain a series ofworkshops designedto beginareview ofthe In September theFTCandDOJjointly 2009, launched conduct tocontinue. short-livedbeforebe to allowwethe going harm is competition to the that sure be to need we competition, harms and justi !cations ef!ciency both has that conduct see we When sharenot do I thatcompetition. view. from harm of lack the potential to the to credit than monopolist more a give of ef!ciencies to potential words, other in or, – competition than zealously more !rms single efpotentiallyprotect!cient should one ef!ciency, promote to order in that, suggested enforcement bring havepractitioners and scholars Some and warranted. as actions conduct monopolistic assess potential carefully to continue Commission the see to hope I Section 5. theories of case, monopolizationand it includes counts under Act Sherman theories as well as recent most previously our is As Intel counts. mentioned, monopolization included all have Solvay,as such cases Rambus,Cephalon, BMS and Unocal, Recent chairmanships. and years several past the spanned our Guidelines, astheyare inEurope? of effects in discussed be remedies the Should innovation?(6) on mergers especially mergers, of effects non-price the (5) merger? a of explicitlyupdatedmore be to addressGuidelines effectsthe Should unilateral the of assessment our affect this will how and products, its a reposition competitor may degree what To (4) practice? agency current re#ect accuratelymore to Guidelines the allowthresholds HHI the in changes Would (3) testimony? customer or market, a of history the in experiments natural as such evidence, direct !gures? (2) How should the agencies treat particular forms of distinct from making inferences on the basis concentration of the agencies might use direct evidencea merger’sof how on effects, discussion as more include Guidelines the Should (1) as: such likely.issues more perhapsinclude are topics Those

T hmg/hmg-questions.pdf. hose

initial 19

They may suggest some topics on which revisions questions Concurrences N°1-2010

can

be

found

on

the

Internet

I

Int

at erview

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/workshops/

I

J on L EIBOWITZ : Priorities and challenges for the USFederal Trade Commission antitrust scene? What are your priorities for theFTCininternational antitrust on vertical mergers induecourse, but notjustnow. in learning current doctrine and economics. That’s on not to say that we based won’t work practices agency actual from most diverge guidelines current the where be to seems that because mergers horizontal on focusedhaveWe economics” learning inantitrustdoctrineand practices basedoncurrent diverge mostfrom actualagency be where thecurrent guidelines mergers becausethatseemsto “We have focused onhorizontal olaus n pattoes n u Hrzna Merger Horizontal our on practitioners foreign and from input colleagues welcome and with consulted have we another, one from learning counterparts. of foreign importance the with Recognizing dialog our improve opportunities further seek to to and Japan) and Canada such EC, partners, the key as our with (particularly interest mutual of cases on colleagues with cooperate to continue will We to enter into mutual assistance agreements with key partners. agencies. also are looking new to invigorate the authority under the signi!cant IAEAA authorities.WeChinese the with with so do Notably,to hope we particularly others, into entering on plan we and counterpart foreign a with MOU U.S. antitrust agencies have entered into an agency-to-agency the that time !rst the is This Russiancounterpart. our with U.S.the agencies’relationshipstrengthens and formalizes It communication. regular and cooperation technical through relationU.S.the the between FASthe agenciesand developantitrust further and consultation and cooperation greater promote to (FAS) Service Antimonopoly Federal the with MOU the into enteredWe effort. this of result one just is and coordination with sister agencies. The MOU with Russia cooperation our strengthen to continue will weBilaterally, sector representatives andacademics, inmultilateral fora. counterparts and working with colleagues and, often, private through developing strong bilateral relations with our this foreign do We policy. competition economically-based sound, promoteconvergenceto towardand agencies antitrust sister with relations Affairscooperative develop to Internationalseeks FTC the (OIA), of Randy Of!ce the of in team guidance his and Tritell excellent the Under effectively. and coherently functions system law competition international the that ensure to togetherwork to us of all for crucial is it laws,competition enforcing currently jurisdictions 100 over well With decades. two past the overlaw antitrust dynamic of areas most the of one been has antitrust International of multilateral activities, ifany, differentiate theUSFTCfrom the USDOJ? do you concretely expect from thisagreement? authorities recently signed anagreement withRussia. What

On thebilateral side, theUSantitrust

What kind 5

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art. L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment and up to a € 300 000 fine (Art. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits of Art. L 122-5 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle and DRM protection. further developing our staff exchange program.further developing ourstaff to and initiative this expanding developed. to forward looking relationshipsare We the through cross- improve cooperation further border will program the that believe and their experience in their work upon returning to their agency, will share their experience with colleagues at home and apply how our conducts staff their work. We hope that participants which under learning FTC the at months six to up foreign an spend of!cials Program established Interns has and FTC Fellows International the authority, this to Pursuant experience.investigational hands-on valuable gain to teams consumer protection) agency of!cials to work with FTC case foreign(and host competition to authority FTCCongress the granted addition, In 5. Section of use the on or industry pharmaceutical the and antitrust on protection, and consumer competition of intersection the at issues to speak will areas consistent with our domestic division. For different example, the on FTC lead the take will agency each agencies, Given the different statutes and the competencies twoof U.S. and Development Economic Cooperation, topursuepolicycoherence. Asia-Paci!c and the as Trade such United organizations regional on the Conference Development, for Nations Organization and the Cooperation including Economic policy, competition concentratingon organizations multilateral other and this participatein actively will We work. high-quality producing leader dynamic a remains ICN the that ensure and efforts his support to OFT the at time spend person staff OIA an havingChair,bynew including the with workingcloselyare also We subgroup. Procedures chairs and Noti!cation Merger and its group working Conduct Unilateral ICN’s the co-chairs FTC the and as Outreach for Chair serves Vice ICN’s the Kovacic Commissioner Group, to Steering forward ICN’s look the of we member a is FTC The leader. ICN International an and as continuing the (ICN) enforcement. of Network member and foundingCompetition a policies was FTC competition The sound toward convergence international encourage to fora multilateral in On the multilateral front, we will continue to promote dialog decades” of antitrustlaw over thepasttwo one ofthemostdynamic areas “International antitrusthasbeen expert U.S. Federal Courtjudgesparticipated. two which in cases, antitrust for responsible judges Chinese haveworkshopproudweek-longto for also a are conducted Vietnam.Weand Africa, South America, Central Latinand Turkeyin advisorsand resident Brazil, placed America, and used our and own funds missions to deliver short-term programs in 47 Colombia, Central conducted FTC the year, past markets.This free support that ways in laws their applying technical assistance program, which assists newer agencies in Guideline initiative. We have also expanded our longstanding Concurrences N°1-2010

I

Int erview

I

J on ! L ! EIBOWITZ : Priorities and challenges for the USFederal Trade Commission "

6

Ce document est protégé au titre du droit d'auteur par les conventions internationales en vigueur et le Code de la propriété intellectuelle du 1er juillet 1992. Toute utilisation non autorisée constitue une contrefaçon, délit pénalement sanctionné jusqu'à 3 ans d'emprisonnement et 300 000 € d'amende (art. L. 335-2 CPI). L’utilisation personnelle est strictement autorisée dans les limites de l’article L. 122 5 CPI et des mesures techniques de protection pouvant accompagner ce document. This document is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties. Non-authorised use of this document constitutes a violation of the publisher's rights and may be punished by up to 3 years imprisonment and up to a € 300 000 fine (Art. L. 335-2 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle). Personal use of this document is authorised within the limits of Art. L 122-5 Code de la Propriété Intellectuelle and DRM protection. Concurrences est une revue trimestrielle couvrant l’ensemble des questions de droits communautaire et interne de la concurrence. Les analyses de fond sont effectuées sous forme d’articles doctrinaux, de notes de synthèse ou de tableaux jurisprudentiels. L’actualité jurisprudentielle et législative est couverte par dix chroniques thématiques.

Editorial Droit et économie Elie Cohen, Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, Emmanuel COMBE, Philippe CHONÉ,

s Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Ian Forrester, Laurent FLOCHEL, Penelope PAPANDROPOULOS, Eleanor Fox, Laurence Idot, Frédéric Jenny, Etienne PFISTER, Francisco ROSATI, David SPECTOR... Jean-Pierre Jouyet, Hubert Legal, Claude Lucas de Leyssac, Mario Monti, Christine Varney, Bo Vesterdorf, Louis Vogel, Denis Waelbroeck... Chroniques

e ENTENTES Michel DEBROUX Laurence NICOLAS-VULLIERME Interview Cyril SARRAZIN Sir Christopher Bellamy, Dr. Ulf Böge, PRATIQUES UNILATÉRALES

c Nadia Calvino, Thierry Dahan, Frédéric Jenny, Frédéric MARTY William Kovacic, Neelie Kroes, Christine Anne-Lise SIBONY Lagarde, Mario Monti, Viviane Reding, Anne WACHSMANN Robert Saint-Esteben, Sheridan Scott, Christine Varney... PRATIQUES RESTRICTIVES ET CONCURRENCE DÉLOYALE HAGNY n Muriel C Mireille DANY Tendances Marie-Claude MITCHELL Jacques Barrot, Jean-François Bellis, Murielle Jacqueline RIFFAULT-SILK Chagny, Claire Chambolle, Luc Chatel, DISTRIBUTION John Connor, Dominique de Gramont, Nicolas ERESEO e Damien Géradin, Christophe Lemaire, Dominique FERRÉ Ioannis Lianos, Pierre Moscovici, Jorge Padilla, Didier FERRIÉ Emil Paulis, Joëlle Simon, Richard Whish... CONCENTRATIONS

r Olivier BILLIARD, Jacques GUNTHER, David HULL, Stanislas MARTIN, Jérôme PHILIPPE, Igor SIMIC, Doctrines David TAYAR, Didier THÉOPHILE Guy Canivet, Emmanuel Combe, Thierry Dahan, AIDES D’ÉTAT

r Luc Gyselen, Daniel Fasquelle, Barry Hawk, Jean-Yves CHÉROT Laurence Idot, Frédéric Jenny, Bruno Lasserre, Jacques DERENNE Anne Perrot, Nicolas Petit, Catherine Prieto, Christophe GIOLITO Patrick Rey, Didier Theophile, Joseph Vogel... PROCÉDURES Pascal CARDONNEL Christophe LEMAIRE u Pratiques Agnès MAÎTREPIERRE Chantal MOMÈGE Tableaux jurisprudentiels : Bilan de la pratique des engagements, Droit pénal et concurrence, RÉGULATIONS Legal privilege, Cartel Profiles in the EU... Joëlle ADDA Emmanuel GUILLAUME c Jean-Paul TRAN THIET Horizons SECTEUR PUBLIC Bertrand du MARAIS Allemagne, Belgique, Canada, Chine, Hong-Kong, Stéphane RODRIGUES India, Japon, Luxembourg, Suisse, Sweden, USA... Jean-Philippe KOVAR

n POLITIQUE INTERNATIONALE Frédérique DAUDRET-JOHN François SOUTY Stéphanie YON

o Revue des revues Christelle ADJÉMIAN Umberto BERKANI Alain RONZANO Bibliographie Centre de Recherches sur l’Union Européenne C (Université Paris I – Panthéon-Sorbonne) Tarifs 2010 25 rueBalard T www d O Les Nom-Prénom J J J J J J J Rue Institution N° Code postal F F C I R R B F R R R e e a u n r r ax :+33(0)142779371 r o d

a - - i s p f e o i n commandes e e e u e s e TV t b b s a r .concurrences.com (“Noticelé

Abonnement annuel-4n° 1 Abonnement 1 Abonnement annuelre 1 Abonnement annuelre fr + subscription year 1 Abonnement annuel+accèslibreauxe-archi 1 1 numéro(v 1 A 1 s d f i

i l

o v v v d e t v y a

i l r n r u u m b u ' i y y y y r t S

e A intracommunautaire/ e s 1 l i u i i o e e e e e t x e m

u t o s f u s l l n

e e e i r a p n a a a a u r s d n t e e m l l é e r r r r

r n e e e s w w c e e r t s d

e e

e s o s a s

l s u o t i

sont i ( n g u m t m u u n u

C C u

i d I p i t t d l : l n é

b o b b b y n p b

r C . g l r i i p e . Zip Code : Code Zip n n l C C o s l

s s s s i s - fermes. a e o o C n n n

a n é c c y c c t c t i C C N n o . t i 7 ersion papier) m r t é r t o r r r r

n

t n n o o o o

a

i T

i i i a 5 i i a e s u annuel d v p n n p p p p a u l n e l e e n m n t e c c r c c e l r n n e t t t 015 P t t t t i s i e n i L u u

i i s i i r f o

u - - m o e o a e o o ’en o u u s r r s u l

c c c s r n

r r - a ( n c

C C e n i n n n e p f e e F e o

o v

r r t u u n o

n n

u l

: c oi r x i gale”). t ( ( n o t

( u e

c c o à r r - r m o 4 . . 4 t o o o 4 t - aris r ) e e r r r

de

s t r r

r e e

u

4 s s

n efundable n l h t 4 a i t r r i

vue (v vue (v o l i i m m

ee access to e-ar to access ee t s

h r s h la c c s i e n n i n n e e r - s e t s o n° s e u

t u e n a ) re n ° u r u r - u s

V e c c n n

r e c s s m e r vue p p e e

( e n e r

r e (v v A F i l (v F s v s s s e e e s t c c

v e

i

T number (EU) : (EU) number T rance l ) e e q r ) . e e ) n ersion électronique)+e-b ersions papier&électronique)+e-b i c m ersion électronique+accèslibreauxe-archi

ou S S

i a ersion

o

c

R s s

w r e e : e ( c ( u u e n ( o t t e s . l u e n w p e b b p des e c c n

i s s c i i u s s l e ( e r o o + r e c c e

p o s i

e t t p . i

( r r n t :

n c articles n i n i i F o

p n i i o + + p p

S S s 3 o t t s

t l n r t t l r

o o

r 0 b t i

i i papier)

p i o & e

e o n o o v

e “

n s l ! u u f n n a n T e u e n n

; contact: [email protected] e e t

- e

p Concurrences

i i i e

r r de n r c v n n c & b b m s i - - l C l l o s s f f h e e

e

i R R o o u s C l 3 v b b o

i r r

r r c

s s s o 0 e à v o e s m m

e

n f o t

& n c l i e u u !

r r e e a a u c c e c ) o o t o

s s t t s u

n c v e i i n m e i i l l é r . n o o v v

x s ” r r r t o es ) n n n ences u l l l t , i r

r l e n s c l o i i a a e e i i t e a c

p

e

n n e n b b c e e v + r t

t t e e d h w d i

r e

et c p

a e i i o o S S w w w

e e f - - r o r t

n n n g n r l’accès w s v o u - C C t e e l i i . r r r e e

e i

c q e o

n i

t f ulletin o l r o h e

e e e u n n C C o o t s n n r

a e s a c

d d e i s s i

c c u - -

o électronique t e m m

c e r a d d c o a + n o o e r C C n - e e r e s d e c i b

n s s i f f s c

n

c n n n p p s u ) t t t r e o o o s g

è

y y e s l m

+ a a

e-Competitions s . l e e s h c c c t e e m m u

a

o o l

o o l t e r i i t t

m u u ulletin i a t d

i i b - i i e n

. l l aux c p c b u u p p t t r - l r r o o V c P e-mail s s e ulletin ulletin a i i s p e r r ays t

ille e e r b i o o r r e a e s c ulletins e e s s u s

h t t .

n n

o

x i i i C o o n n t u v l l o v

s s t t t o

a e s e C City : : City n

es) n i i c c : i r r - e s d d ou s . a o o o e u ) / - d d e e o r

l a l u F articles r t c n n

e r r Concurrences n s s h e e a c z n t

s s i h l r c v . r r e i y e e s v

de s e W W c : ) t t

o s e n i i ) o o - t t . d C h h i o t o o 445 575 845 395 745 140 m 6 i r o e u u 4 p q n H t t e u s 5

t t t i

i r

t a a d T e i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! o ’ x x

full pr full u n

s t i ont l i s a e T T lieu p t i a a a o 1010,62 y x x . n m 454,35 891,02 142,94 771,42 472,42 dès

d e i i 687,7 ( ( n n n u F F t T r r réception

c c . a a

s n n l l i c c u u T t e e e d d

o o

n n s e e C ! ! ! ! ! ! ! l l u y y d d r ) )