Frontier Publications
- Google itFirm strategy in communication device, platform and application integrationBulletin | 18.11.2011.
- Thinking outside the box: calculating damagesReflections on major cartel cases in AustraliaBulletin | 27.04.2011.
- Where convergence exposes divergenceImplications of convergence on broadcast licensingBulletin | 06.04.2011.
- Green is GoodClimate Institute study on clean energy jobsBulletin | 03.03.2011.
- Blurring the distinction between carbon costs and pricesBulletin | 08.12.2010.
- What’s the cost of carbon uncertainty?The impact of delayed investment in the power sectorBulletin | 08.11.2010.
- Third time luckyMobile termination regulation in New ZealandBulletin | 17.09.2010.
- Keep 'em un-coordinatedCoordinated effects in mergersBulletin | 19.08.2010.
- The times, they’re a changin’Using economics to adapt to climate changeBulletin | 11.08.2010.
- Economic Analysis of the RSPTWith a postscript on the negotiated outcomePaper | 05.07.2010.
The Competition Law Analysis of Collaborative Structures
How should courts examine arrangements relating to collaborative activity?This paper argues that collaborative activity is ubiquitous, and many forms of collaborative activity involve arrangements to do with prices or arrangements that may contain exclusionary provisions. For many of these arrangements, it is not clear whether they fall within the relevant per se contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. When confronted by these difficult cases, the courts should first examine the conduct at issue to discover what is really going on. The case of Radio 2UE provides a lead. If the conduct is of a kind that is obviously monopolistic, it should be characterized as falling within the per se prohibition. If it is not of that kind it should not be so characterized, and in this case should be condemned only if it substantially lessens competition.
Andrew Harpham, Donald Robertson and Philip Williams, Australian Business Law Review, Vol 34, December 2006, 399-427
 Printer friendly
|
