IB, Re: More Information:
leeko.com
The majority opinion stated that the legislative intent of Article 3-2 MRFTA is to promote competition in a market where a market-dominant enterprise(s) exist. In this regard, it emphasised that the interpretation
of ‘unreasonableness’ in the Refusal by a Market-Dominant Enterprise must be made in view of such legislative intent of Article 3-2. Accordingly, the majority opinion determined that the Refusal by a Market-Dominant Enterprise is unreasonable, if the refusal (i) is carried out with a purpose or intent to restrict competition; and (ii) actually causes or has a possibility of causing competition-restricting effects in
the market.
Under the majority opinion, if there is an actual competition-restricting effect, the enforcement of Article 3-2 MRFTA against the Refusal by a Market-Dominant Enterprise would be easy, because as mentioned earlier, the first element of unreasonableness (ie, the existence of a purpose or intent) is satisfied by presumption, and the second element (ie, the existence of an actual or possible competition-restricting effect resulting from the refusal) is satisfied by the actual
existence of the competition-restricting effect.
This case is "Long Ago", having been decided well before the 2008 decision of KFTC and was well known by the KFTC in making it's decision.
Intel will wiggle and squirm, file petitions for as long as they can, but will then pay.
-tgp |
