• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

'■n*« ■ 80 - MANCHESTER HERALD, Saturday, May 7. 1983 BUSINESS Golf club’s fate: MCC baseball’s New campus homes or park? brush with glory takes shape Law would allow joint research projects ... page 3 ... page 14 ... page 3 New* has slipped out (from the top, just possibly?) was authorized under the antitrust umbrella, wasn’t "reasonable” research combines are legal. This that tile administration wants a new law to help it? either does nothing at all since this is already the law f competitors get together for joint research without DESPITE THESE rather irreverent suspicions — or is a signal to the courts that "anything goes.” fear of antitrust suits. This seems great %ince we all about some of the motives of supporters of the A side effect of all this might be that politicians agree that additional research to develop new research pool exemption, it may pass. Democrats would be able to tell the public that they had struck a technologies to make American industry more who relish industrial "planning’ (publicor private) as great blow for technological advance and for the Manchester, Conn. competitive is badly needed these days. economy without having to spend a single federal Cloudy tonight; well as administration antitrusters have lined up Monday, May 9, 1983 But is an antitrust umbrella the answer? What kinds behind some form of-green light for competitors to penny. Even if the idea does no good or actually does partly sunny Tuesday harm, it sounds impressive and it’s taking action that of outrageous activities might the umbrella shield? debate. how fast to push their research, so the — See page 2 Single copy: 25<i: And what would be the effect on joint research that combination to authorize these combinations may be can be publicized. failed to come under the magic protection that might hard to stop, regardless of ita-merits. Supporters of the belief that the main thing is to do be offered? . something when the public wants something done — iHanrl|fatpr rate If an exemption does get punched into the When companies do their research separately, time. near-century-old Sherman Act of 1890, what forms even if that something accomplishes nothing—can be there can be a healthy race to get there first. Absolute 3) Credit is hard to get where risks are big. could the exemption take? One idea is to allow counted on to give them wise counsel in favor of the trade secrecy is often the byword within corporate Possible solution: Allow the banks to allocate a government officials to review how the joint research exemption. That may well be the deciding factor, labs for exactly that reason. Beating the other certain percentage of loans for high-risk ventures effort would work, carefully analyze all the facts, and since those who want to run for re-election must show company to the punch can provide a tremendous edge with the Federal Research Board itself to help where then decide whether the effect would be or would not that they took vigorous action on a long range of vital — even if there is no patent issued. By the time the the research is vital to the national interest. This is the be wonderful for competition. If they say "great! ’’ the areas. other firm catches up, the first company may well be way it would be in wartime or if a big loan were in deal would be immune from attack. The catch could Check that box! several jumps further along, widening the gap at each jeopardy that could sink a lot of banks (this has ("Sylvia Porter’s New Money Book for the 80s,” leap. be that whether this joint sharing of the research is Thatcher happened). good or bad might n o t^ crystal clear. How can you 1,328 pages of down-to-earth advice on personal All this Olympic-style enthusiasm to break records Yes, you say, but isn’t it true that in some instances really tell how one of these pools will work out unless money management, is now available through her and reach the goal ahead of the pack can be dampened duplication of effort is wasteful and it would be useful it’s tried? The odds could be hard to place. column. Send $9.95 plus $1 for mailing and handling to considerably if there is one big research pool that for efforts to be pooled to save repetitious research? What, then, could the completely i\eutral, impartial "Sylvia Porter’sNew Money Book for the 80s,” In care everybody is in. Why hurry? You will get exactly what Possibly, but if so, the antitrust laws are not a barrier experts conceivably look at in making their of the Manchester Herald, 4400 Johnson Drive, ■Of, everyone else gets. Why put in extra work if your even without any amendments. scientifically accurate assessment? Could politics Fairway, Kan. 66205. Make checks payable to competitors will share the benefit? In 1980 the Justice Department issued guides for Universal Press Syn^cate.) calls vote possibly creep in? Even if not, how are the chances Joint research can be bad for the national economic research joint ventures that said that if companies that business would be sure they won’t? If business health just as easily as it could be good if no company needed to get together to do research that otherwise thinks that politics might help to get an exemption, alone could do the work (hardly likely in this age of couldn’t be done, that would be OK as long as they could it be that "contributions” just might help — up conglomerate giants). didn’t go further and fix prices, divvy up customers or or down in one case or the other? Few hard examples have been offered of research do other things that would chill competition. Another variation on the exemption does away with efforts that were stillborn because competitors were Furthermore, the only cases that have zapped joint the risk of “enemies lists" of non-contributors by Why the Green Light year early forbidden to join forces. Interviews with managers in research ventures have arisen where the claim was making the umbrella open automatically if the industry who are innovating or want to innovate that the participants had linked to stop, not speed, would-be joint researchers meet criteria specified in for Cartels? 9 suggest that the real obstacles are completely research that might make their existing products different and include: the law. Some of the criteria suggested include the obsolete. Planned obsolescence, remember? presence of academics who don’t have to put in any A green light is flashing for cartels — via a By John Jones of national elections, though a ' 4 I 1) Top management wants a juicy bottom line right Why, then, the big push for an antitrust loophole if it dollars on a governing board to manage the joint ^ X la w that will help competitors get together United Press International royal proclamation must dissolve * iwwZS now, and accounts insist that the research and isn’t needed? One explanation could possibly be that venture, or ability of all competitors (even some for joint research without fear o f antitrust Parliament just over three weeks development is a current expense that socks that some people just don’t believe in antitrust at all and suits. The clanger tci research that would help LONDON — Prime Minister before polling day. bottom line right in the eye. foreign firms from, for instance, Japan) to have would like to punch every pin into it they can, and if access to all the information developed. What are the American industry develop new technologies Margaret Thatcher today asked Since British elections tradition­ Possible solution: Allow research to be treated as research is a handy excuse, that’s just dandy. Or it chances that a real research effort, not "a cover for to make us more competitive is very real. Queen Elizabeth to dissolve Parli­ ally are held on Thursdays and an asset that you buy rather than just an expense, in could be that some industries would like to slow down fixing prices,” would proceed that way? To decide, ament and called a national Parliament had some business to the same way that a physical asset you buy and intend change that makes their existing investments Why the pu.fh for an antitrust loophole if it election for June 9, nearly a year put yourself in the position of one who is putting isn't needed? finish up this week, June 9 was the to use is treated as such. A safeguard would demand ancient, under the guides of getting together to speed money, time and trade secrets into the pot, with the before her term of office expires earliest date Mrs. Thatcher could that the company reveal in its reports that it’s doing up change. under British law. outcome to be controlled by scholars and even foreign 1 JSome forces don’t believe in antitrust at choose for a national election. The this so that anyone who doesn’t like it can refuse to A third possibility is that there are forces that would competitors. A No. 10 Downing Street state­ new Parliament will meet Wednes­ take the figures at face value. like to go back to old-fashioned price fixing without A/M and would like to punch every pin ment said Parliament will be day June 15, with the state opening 2) The same top management is terrified that if the into it that they can. having to worry about antitrust.

Load more

  10

Copy Link