| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,900,000)
Fiscal Year 2005: ¥900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥1,100,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,100,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The research results during the period consist of two groups of comparative studies. The attacked report includes both these results and the articles published during the period.
(1) I analyzed the concept of dominant position adopted by both EU Competition Law and so- called effective competition review in the EU telecommunication regulations, and the way how the competent authorities, including Ofcom of United Kingdom, evaluate and analyze it. And then I evaluated essential facility theory and regulated cases, which is one of the key regulations in EU control against abuse of dominant position. Thereafter, I analyzed decisions of both US v. Microsoft and FTC v. Intel discussed in US courts. These cases can be characterized as dealing with controversial issues of monopolization (Section 2, Sherman Act). It became apparent, on the one hand, that there are some differences by the regulation against abuse of dominant position, between EU, US and Japanese competition laws. But on the other
… More
hand I concluded that these laws have commonalities in the most important part reflecting specific circumstances of these nations or districts.
(2) I analyzed issues of dominant position competition law in Japan are struggling with. I discussed the legislation proposal to regulate conduct in parallel to prevent market entry by two or more undertakings, which have been exclusively allocated usage rights by an institution such as the government. I also analyzed sector-specific regulations and competition law from the standpoint of corporate governance of public undertakings especially in the fields of energy telecommunications and postal services in Japan. At the end, I discussed the enforcement aspects of competition law against abusive conduct of dominant position. First, I explored issues concerning newly legislated surcharge system which are charged for private monopolization by the means of "controlling" activities of other undertakings. Second, I discussed what kind of remedies should be ordered by the competent authorities in mergers cases, which produce, maintain or stretches dominant positions. Less
|
