Talk:Competition law/Old

Good article
This seems to be a good article. Why are there so many tags? Every article has *some* issues. Overusing templates reduces their value and clutters pages. Nilbert 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no it isn't a good article :) I don't know much about the debate that has been raging on the Chicago School or US right-wing/left-wing matters.  But things like "If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share ..." are dangerous misstatements of EC law. Proz 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Chicago School section completely inaccurate
"While antitrust law has always been guided by economic theory, the extent to which economic theory dominates the law has increased"

This makes it seem like economics played less of a part in antitrust until the Chicago School economists came around. That is simply not true, the economic models of that time were just different. The Clayton Act was passed because Congress was concerned that if markets became too concentrated, then that would invite collusion and thus they wanted to restrict mergers. While that theory was prominent courts were also pretty hasty to strike down anything that smelled of collusion as per se illegal. At the time, this was a perfectly valid economic theory around which courts based their decisions.

"Bork argued that both the original intention of antitrust laws and economic efficiency was pursuit only of consumer welfare, the protection of competition rather than competitors"

This argument did not originate with Bork, but is rather an oft-cited quote from a Supreme Court case that was decided before Bork wrote his book: "Taken as a whole, the legislative history illuminates congressional concern with the protection of competition, not competitors, and its desire to restrain mergers only to the extent that such combinations may tend to lessen competition." Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 320 (1962).

Problems with the article, and my work to correct them
Compared to the other articles here on legal topics, this article is shockingly bad. Large parts do not seem to be written by native or fluent English speakers. I hope those with the time and ability to improve the article do so carefully, calmly, and in good faith.

I do not have the time to do a full rewrite, but I hope the extensive edits that I made will remain and others will build upon them. I am an American antitrust lawyer, so I hope those who do not share such a background will defer to my years of specialized knowledge and experience, and rather than overwriting any of my edits, instead try to improve other parts of the article. In particular, the article sorely needs a quick summary of the major American and EU antitrust laws.

The historical section is pretty good as far as content, but the style again does not indicate someone with native fluency in English. Also, like most legal topics the focus should be on the law as it is today, and the history of the laws moved to the end of the article.

Finally, please be careful about attributing one particular view to the Chicago School. There are substantial differences in the views of such scholars as Judge Posner and former Judge Bork. I hope I was able to "unlump" them in my edits to that section.

The extent to which the article now focuses on the United States and to a lessor degree Western Europe and Canada I do not think is a problem. Most important developments in competition law occured first in the USA, and were later followed in the EU, and then elsewhere in the world, if at all. In the past 20 years Europe has been catching up to the USA, but the center of antitrust legal scholarship, and the similar field of industrial organization economics, remains in the United States.

Herrdoctor 03:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Expanding the page
I'm creating a proper competition law page, which doesn't merely redirect to the Antitrust page, covering US law on the matter. It'll be far bigger, and better, and hopefully it'll be done properly before long.  Wik idea  09:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, I've finished most of what I can manage for today. The detail in practice, and more work on the theory will follow when I go to the library and have a bit more time. But the sections all have something in them now of use and hopefully the changes are liked.  Wik idea  16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Article length
This article is currently 55KB. Article size recommends considering splitting up articles over 30 or 40KB. I recently read this article for the first time, and though it has lots of excellent information, my patience was definitely taxed by two-thirds of the way through. The length and reader experience I think are signs that it's too detailed for a brief overview. What can be done about it? The history section essentially includes both "Competition law history" and "Competition law today", and is long enough for an article on its own. I think these eight sections should be split off into an article on the "History of competition law" and a summary half the current length left in its place. The "Competition law theory" section is rather dry and technical. It could also be moved to a new article and summarized here in a paragraph or two. Splitting into subarticles will help make room for further expansion; I'm afraid this single page can't hold much more. -- Beland 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but Beland, as an experienced administrator you should know that a huge number of featured articles do go beyond 40KB. If I removed all the photos I'd cut it down. It's simply a piece of guidance, which gives a suggestion as a warning for people who create pages that waffle. Think about this from the point of view from someone coming to the page who wants to learn about competition law - a student for instance. They'll want detail and they'll find it in this page. I'm really sorry your patience is taxed, but you can find a good summary in the intro, per WP:LEAD style, can't you.  Wik idea  23:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of sheer number of wikitext characters, it's a matter of the amount of prose that readers have to wade through. (Which photos are actually rather good at breaking up.)  I am a person that was coming to the page looking for information on the topic, and I found that this article didn't do a concise job of summarizing the topic.  I'm all for having lots of detail in the encyclopedia for those that want it, but that's independent of page size.  When articles get too big, they get split up into subarticles.  Look at say, the History of the People's Republic of China, which is a huge subject, but the main article is under 32KB, which is a nice single-sitting chunk.  The lead is a one-paragraph summary of the topic, but the idea of the 30KB target length is to provide a one-page summary for those (like me) who want more detail than that. -- Beland 02:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask for some outside opinions on this question, so we can get a more meaningful consensus. -- Beland 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For every article you can cite that's under, I can cite one that's way over. Take, e.g. Byzantine Empire which is 121 KB in size. It's also got a star which the History of the People's Republic of China doesn't.  Wik idea  19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't entirely agree that Byzantine Empire is an appropriate length, and there have been complaints about the length on the talk page there as well. But that subject also has a lot more material to cover than this one.  It's certainly a judgement call, which is why I have asked for additional opinions. -- Beland 20:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'd like to see you contributing something rather than just criticising. When I say contribute, I mean the act involved in picking up a book, reading it, and writing something about that which is inside.  Wik idea  11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Beland makes legitimate criticisms, and instead of addressing them, Wikidea simply insults. The article is filled with redundancies and irrelevant trivia and could easily be cut. However, because of a severe WP:OWN problem, even my own minor cuts of 0.8K have been reverted, so it appears to be pointless to try until more editors can be brought to bear on the subject. THF 10:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment answer: The article is long but by necessity. I am only answering the Request for Comment about the length (there are more than one request). I suggest a better 1st paragraph with the 1st sentence defining it then trying to summarize the history, theory, etc. in short paragraphs. Plumbing 03:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Amartya Sen
One very good example of both the bloat of the article and its POV-failings is the extensive discussion of Amartya Sen's views. Who cares? Nothing cited directly impacts competition law; he's had no influence in the area. That Amartya Sen is mentioned six times, while Richard Epstein and Frank Easterbrook (who are deeply involved in antitrust) were mentioned not at all before I added one footnote to Easterbrook is telling. The criticism of neoclassical economics belongs not in the article at all: it just bloats it with irrelevancies for a collateral matter. THF 17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I no longer see any mention of this author in the body of the article, and there's only one footnote that cites his work as an example of the opposite of another view mentioned in the main text, so this seems to be resolved. I cleaned up some dangling references, including Sen's; there are only two left which are referenced multiple times and so may require some expert footnote template manipulation. -- Beland 07:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo-liberal reference requested
I requested citations for the claims that neo-liberals were once considered cranks, and that they are now an influential or dominant school of thought. User:Wikidea removed my request for a citation and commented on my talk page:


 * as for the facts needed post, I'm removing that too because the discussion goes on to substantiate what I've said. If you have a read of some of their material at a library, then you see it all there.

The later discussion does not substantiate these claims, it merely covers the ideas of neo-liberals in more detail. It is not sufficient to say that one would find that the claims are substantiated if one visits a library; Verifiability requires that specific sources be cited, or the material be removed. Moreover, it is not these authors themselves who determine whether they are cranks or influential, and they are not reliable sources for this information. Reliable third-party sources are needed to support these claims. -- Beland 19:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I stand by that lovely excerpt that you've now deleted from your user page. I don't have the book to hand, it's by Frank Stilwell and is called Political Economy. Of course the neo liberals were considered cranks! It only changed when Thatcher and Reagan came to power in the late seventies and early eighties, when the things these economists had been advocating were put into practice. Change the sentence if you're really dying to. It's a little sad to cling a fact citation template in one sentence in a page as big as this. Anyway, I'd like to see you contributing a little more and criticising a little less.  Wik idea  00:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to think that fact-checking is an important contribution. "Cranks" in particular is a strong word that carries a strong value judgement, and so properly documenting it is particularly important.  If this attitude toward neo-liberalism was so notable, why isn't it mentioned on neoliberalism? I'll add in the citation needed tag.  It's nothing to be ashamed of, but if it bothers you, feel free to resolve it by citing a reliable source. -- Beland 02:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bork phrasing
I restored a previous edit of mine rephrasing part the discussion of Bork's views. The old phrasing was simply difficult to parse, and I had to read it several times to make sense of it. The new phrasing is an attempt to say the same thing using a sentence structure which is easier to grasp on first reading. Most of the problem with the previous phrasing was the use of a double negative: "nothing beyond X should be prohibited". Expressing this using a single negative - "only X should be prohibited" is simpler and clearer. -- Beland 19:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that.  Wik idea  23:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

ICN link
The mention of the International Competition Network is about twice as long in this article as it needs to be. There's no need to mention the web site of the organization here because it's linked from the article. Also, such references belong in the "External links" section, they shouldn't be pointed out explicitly in the main text of the article. -- Beland 19:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't understand what's wrong with putting in the ICN's website. If you can fish out a copy of Richard Whish's Competition Law (2003) he has a whole chapter section on it - pp.448-9. Of course external links can go in footnotes, and so what if there's another page for it. Don't delete it again.  Wik idea  23:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you just wanted to put a footnote on the organization's name that contained a pointer to the website, that would be better though still redundant, considering the name is a link to a whole Wikipedia article about the organization. But devoting a whole sentence to the existence of the web site is adding unnecessary length to an already overly long article. It also over-emphasizes the web site, which is why it came across to me as self-promotional.  The article text is supposed to be stating facts; pointers to outside sources for additional information go in footnotes or the external links section. If you look at other places where organizations are named, like Non-profit, you won't see any external links, just internal ones. -- Beland 02:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
From the subsection title ("Neo-liberal radicalism") to the text that refuses to take Bork or Posner seriously, misrepresents their views, and smears them as "cranks", this section is appallingly violative of NPOV requirements. -- THF 03:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers for you insight Ted, and glad to have such a notable professional in the field having a read. I've removed the appalling smear.  Wik idea  19:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court started adopting Bork's competition-law views in 1977 in GTE Sylvania before Thatcher or Reagan came to power. The section presents a caricature of Posner's views and Bork's views. And in fifteen years in this area, I've never once seen anyone refer to it as "neoliberal radicalism" except on Wikipedia. THF 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Groan. Will you please not add that neutrality tag again? I can't really do much unless you suggest something. I would have thought Bork might have happily seen himself as a radical. Does he still work with you Ted? Maybe you can ask him? Is he your boss? And so far as neo-liberal goes, to my mind that's a pretty normal way of describing economists who reacted to the post war consensus, like Friedman. Would you prefer "neo-conservative"? Make a constructive suggestion or two, please, otherwise I'd appreciate it if you stopped complaining.  Wik idea  16:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you making this personal? My problems are (1) the inaccurate and POV-pushing "radicalism" characterization that exist only on Wikipedia; (2) the mischaracterization of Bork's views; (3) the mischaracterization of Posner's views; (4) the failure to recognize that the Chicago School reflects mainstream legal thought in the United States endorsed by all nine of the current Supreme Court justices; (5) the failure to mention Aaron Director; and (6) various personal opinions stated in the section in violation of NPOV and NOR.  The neutrality tag stays until the neutrality violations are fixed.  The entire section needs to be rewritten, preferably with reliance on reliable sources instead of an editor's idiosyncratic characterizations. THF 17:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I said "constructive". And when you edit, can you make sure you aren't messing up the heading and punctuation? You haven't told me why the direct quotations are mischaracterisations. As for personalisation, if you want to deal in words like appalling smears, then you can at least expect some ironic horseplay in return. Do you mean that Bork isn't your boss? The neutrality tag goes, mate, and instead of being boring, fish out a book, look something up and write about it.  Wik idea  22:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should take your own advice before you make edits like this one, where you are so desperate to revert the NPOV tag before someone sees it that you scotch the picture caption. THF 09:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I listed six separate violations of NPOV in the section and made constructive suggestions. You haven't defended any of problems, you've just played edit-war.  Fix the NPOV problem and you won't have an NPOV tag.  THF 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've said zero that is specific. There is barely a sentence that is not direct quotation or direct reference. Unless you tell me which direct quotation or which direct reference is not to your pleasure, there is nothing I can do [(2) and (3)].
 * You did not respond yourself to my suggestions for another title. You have not suggested alternatives yourself [(1)]. The first sentence which I've already deleted said that Chicago school economics had come to the point of dominance and you wanted it deleted [(4)]. If you want someone new added, then do the opposite of your current cynical approach, get out a book, and write [(5)]. You continue to contribute nothing, even your criticisms with vague references "various opinions" contribute nothing [(6)]. You can still redeem yourself, but you are beginning to look a bit hopeless, and as I said before, boring.  Wik idea  07:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your persistent personal attacks, obnoxious talk-page edit summaries, and lack of civility are not productive. Perhaps you have comments on the edits I had to waste time making because your response to NPOV problems was to delete the tag and pretend they weren't there instead of fixing them? -- THF 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo-liberalism/Chicago school section
Thanks for your changes, but I've put back the referenced material, and put the stuff about Reagan and the Supreme Court together at the beginning. Please in future say which sentences you don't approve of in particular. If you had done that to begin with, then there might not have been the fuss. I've deleted the reference to "neo-liberalism" in the monopoly section - I presume that's what you object to?  Wik idea  08:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I object to the mischaracterization of the Chicago School positions, and the lack of balance in the dominance and monopoly section, like I said.  The referenced material was taken out for a reason.
 * The entire article gives short shrift to Chicago School positions and lacks balance.
 * The entire article now? Blimey! Actually, I thought it was a page about law. Hopefully they aren't mentioned outside the parts on theory except in passing, like any other theorist.
 * Posner's views are not "pro-big business."
 * Alright, I'll remove it. Although, you're wrong - competition not competitors, etc.
 * Milton Friedman is not prominent in competition law issues, and the article is a caricature of his positions.
 * Come on, he's a towering thinker of the twentieth century, and part of the same body of opinion! You're pulling our legs!
 * I don't know what "In fact monopolies, they say, are created by government intervention that nationalises or attempts to regulate markets." is meant to say, because it's so vague as to be meaningless, along with weasel words, but that sort of sentence is typical of the mischaracterizations.
 * Isn't it true? Nationalisation and regulation create monopolies, say the Chicago School. I'm not saying their views are good or bad at all!
 * What the heck does "The deep splits existing in economic theory was even fought out in the US Supreme Court on one occasion, with Professor Philip Areeda, who favours more aggressive antitrust policy, pitted against Robert Bork's preference for non intervention." mean? Every antitrust litigation is fought out by opposing economic experts, and antitrust issues are decided in the Supreme Court annually.  It's a non-notable fact and a contentless sentence.
 * I think the point is, that two very prominent academics got into litigation, which was in a way that isn't usual.
 * Oh, and I've even got a published author who agrees with me - Giorgio Monti, EC Competition Law (2007), whose first chapter you can see online here - see bottom of page 2.
 * The whole page needs rewriting. Pronoun reference problems and sludgy writing everywhere.
 * At least I put verbs in my sentences.
 * The edits you made took issues out of chronological order.
 * Mean to I didn't, sorry.
 * I don't have time to take on such tasks. I add tags, hoping people who know what they're doing pay attention to the page.  Removing the tags without fixing the problem is not a solution; insulting those who point out the problem is offensive on its own, and violates WP:CIVIL. -- THF 08:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously you don't just add tags, because you did begin to make some contributions. If you are just adding tags, and waiting for someone else who knows what they're doing to come along, how do you know that adding tags is correct? And anyway, adding tags isn't productive. I think you should stop, especially if you don't have the time. I can see this is raising your stress levels, which is not helpful, and I'm sorry for that. Please be specific, go slowly and assume good faith.  Wik idea  08:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing the NPOV tag. The NPOV tag reflects a dispute over the neutrality of the page.  It remains until either (1) the editor disputing neutrality agrees to remove the tag, or (2) there is a consensus among other editors that the tag is inappropriate.  It is hard for me to assume good faith when you edit-war like this, still haven't apologized for your repeated insults, and respond to legitimate concerns with snide remarks.  Bring it up for an RFC.  I'm done playing games with you, and you plainly don't wish to edit collaboratively. -- THF 09:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I make no apologies to you or for the way I will continue to deal with your inflammatory approach. I have address every solitary specific concern you have raised, and each time, after doing what you request have taken down the tag. Without saying what you think is wrong, borking the page's neutrality is pure vandalism. You work for a conservative thinktank as you say on your user page. This leads me to believe that you have another agenda. I wish you all the best in your positive contributions, but you have no place on Wikipedia if all you want to do is dole out shrill complaints that nobody knows how to address.  Wik idea  09:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And one a lighter note, I do appreciate you adding those cases - but could you please put in the citations for me? The US Antitrust law page would benefit greatly from someone like you who perhaps knows about the Supreme court's jurisprudence explaining it.  Wik idea  09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And again with the violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:3RR. I'd like the page to be accurate and neutral.  Right now, it's neither, and I'm getting insulted for my troubles. THF 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think SCOTUS has necessarily adopted the Chicago view, but has instead adopted a sort of middleground between the traditional and Chicago School views (e.g. per se/rule of reason dichotomy). We also need to add the views of government agencies to this section (e.g. Horizontal Merger Guidelines).

NPOV dispute since June 2007; Cleanup-rewrite; Tone; Globalize tags
An edit-warring editor refuses to acknowledge a legitimate dispute over whether this article is neutral, and, because of apparent WP:OWN problems, repeatedly removes the tag in violation of WP:3RR. I won't re-add it, but I dispute the neutrality of the page, which is written from an anti-Chicago-School point of view, and fails to equally weight the predominant strain of theory in American competition law. -- THF 09:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

7/11 edits
THF:

Do you feel my edits have resolved the NPOV problem on the presentation of the Chicago School? Herrdoctor 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They are a step in the right direction, but my problems with the article are not resolved, for the reasons I detailed below that have not yet been addressed. The new "enforcement of US antitrust law" section is awkwardly placed; some of the new edits result in awkward phrasings; the article is still burdened by extraneous trivia and inappropriate examples. But it does seem that the vast majority of sentences with unencyclopedic tone have been fixed so I've removed that tag. THF 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 0

 * Entire article poorly and unclearly written, including use of undefined Eurocentric jargon such as "hard core cartel" ; passive voice, pronoun reference problems, and weasel words abound, as do grammar and punctuation problems and non sequiturs and irrelevant trivia such as Posner's six-year stint in the Justice Department, which Wikidea reinserted after I deleted. -- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Posner's work at the Antitrust division is relevant to his expertise. Hard core cartel is not Eurocentric jargon. Here is a paper from the International Competition Network for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * Non sequitur. Why isn't Bork's work as Solicitor General and years of antitrust litigation relevant to his expertise?  (The answer: this is an article about competition law, not Bork.  Same for Posner.) THF 16:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unencyclopedic tone throughout.-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No acknowledgement that Chicago School view of competition law is dominant theory behind US federal antitrust law, or the huge shift in American competition law between 1977 and 2007.-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is in the first sentence of the chicago school paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * Right. Buried three sections down in a single subsection, while the pro-intervention POV is throughout the article and regularly stated as fact. THF 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly, the "Competition law today" section has absolutely no discussion of the post-1977 revolution in US antitrust thinking led by the Chicago School. The Chicago School section should be rewritten, moved to the Competition law today section, and the remainder of the theory section can be safely deleted or shifted to a different article. THF 22:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 1

 * No mention of Chicago School critique of leverage theory of anticompetitive behavior; instead leverage is taken as example of anticompetitive behavior: "One case in point could be a software company who through its monopoly on computer platforms makes consumers use its media player" violates NPOV -- it is not unanimous opinion that this is anticompetitive.-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can put it in the Chicago School (economics) article? This is an article about law - the sentence says could, and cited is an EU case that says it was. There's theoretical disagreement which the article (and your own opinions) make clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * You greatly misunderstand the WP:NPOV policy if you think this response resolves the issue. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note further that my statement is a statement of law. I can find many judicial opinions criticizing the leverage theory.  E.g., Schor v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 05-3344 (7th Cir. 2006) (Easterbrook, J.). - THF 02:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At minimum, we should explain that European law tends to see this as uncompetitive behavior although it's a theoretically controversial point. Weasel words do not cancel out POV. Imagine if war crime said that Henry Kissenger "could" be considered a typical war criminal. BLP concerns aside, such a statement sacrifices both accuracy and NPOV for the sake of a poorly-picked example. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "regulation becomes necessary to protect the ideal market model" -- very obvious POV-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's written in a reported speech form, in grammar lessons it's called the subjunctive tense. It doesn't make a statement, it reflects what the neo-classical stream believes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * The subjective tense has no business in a Wikipedia article. As poorly phrased, it creates POV problems. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The two largest, most organised and influential systems of competition regulation are United States antitrust law and European Community competition law. The respective national authorities, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the European Commission's Competition Directorate General (DGCOMP) have formed international support and enforcement networks." is factually incorrect; the FTC also has a competition-law role in the US.-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and add the FTC, and don't pretend anyone minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)

convenience break 2

 * Competition law history section also inaccurate and pro-intervention POV-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no pro intervention slant. Have you heard of Conservapedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)


 * No mention of adverse effects of government price-fixing; this is typical problem of article, which has multiple detailed cites to Sen's criticism of classical school, but none of criticism of interventionism-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire section on the Chicago school is a criticism of interventionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * No, the entire section on the Chicago school is trivia about Chicago school members. Again, lack of balance. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * THF is entirely right. I cannot understand why we should cite two of Posner's books inline without even hinting about what his views are or they are or why they became influential.  This section still reads as if a capitalist cabal of cranks was sinisterly stationed into positions of power by Ronald Reagan. It mentions some of the key players and documents their relationships, but nobody could read this article and have any idea why the Chicago School thinks as they do. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Sherman Act was deficient in a number of respects, its broadbrush approach being one of them. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt's federal government sued 45 companies, and William Taft used it against 75. Furthermore, the Sherman Act was used to sue trade unions, whose members, working employees, attempted to bargain collectively for better pay and conditions in their contractual terms - a far cry from the wealth extorted from the economy by monopolists." -- you have to be kidding. That whole section has obvious POV problems.-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please add criticism if you wish. If you pick up a book and suggest something, you'll impress me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * WP:CIVIL, please. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mischaracterization of Chicago School views throughout article
 * Nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * WP:CIVIL, please. THF 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mischaracterization of Friedman views, which, in any event, are relatively non-notable in context of American competition law -- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They're direct quotes. You haven't replied to what I wrote above. Friedman is a towering figure of economic theory in 20th century —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * Non sequitur. John Maynard Keynes is a towering figure of economic theory in the twentieth century, but he doesn't have two sentences about his supposed attacks on big business (which for Friedman's "direct quotes" remain uncited, while the one cite to Friedman doesn't support the sentence), because, like Friedman, he had no impact on American competition law. THF 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 2a

 * "When firms hold large market shares, up to one hundred percent, consumers are probably at risk of paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than if the market were competitive." - unclear meaning, and very poor explication of problem of market power, as well as conveying disputed POV that market share = market power-- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The next sentence makes clear that the Chicago School differs on this. Please clear up meaning of market power in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * Again, the formulation "X is true, but Y disagrees" violates NPOV by failing to present both views in a balanced manner. THF 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "However often firms take advantage of their increase in market power, their increased market share and decreased number of competitors, which can have a knock on effect on the deal that consumers get." obvious POV problem, inaccurate, and unencyclopedic -- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence prior to that one makes clear that mergers can be beneficial. Same as your last complaint, you don't want both sides of the story to be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs)
 * It violates POV when the one position is stated as Chicago Schoolers' opinion, while the opposite position is stated as "However, the opposite position is true." THF 22:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "The deep splits existing in economic theory was even fought out in the US Supreme Court on one occasion" factually incorrect wrt "one occasion." That Areeda and Bork participated in a particular Supreme Court case seems irrelevant trivia; economists file briefs in just about every US Supreme Court antitrust case in the last thirty years. -- THF 10:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "One occassion" is a figure of speech, like "one instance". I also replied to the same complaint above. Wik idea  12:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Misleading figures of speech do not belong in Wikipedia, and you have not addressed why this case, out of all the cases where economists disagree in front of the Supreme Court, should be mentioned, much less why it's more important that economists disagreed than that the Supreme Court held that Bork was correct or why it held that Bork was correct. THF 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 3

 * "The Chicago School holds predatory pricing to be impossible, because if it were then banks would lend money to finance it." is a typical inaccurate POV strawman caricature of the Chicago School, aside from being a poorly-written sentence that makes no sense. Accurate account can be found at: Frank Easterbrook, "Predatory Strategies and Counterstrategies," University of Chicago Law Review 48 (1981): 334. THF 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire "Dominance and monopoly" section is written from an EU perspective, without any acknowledgement of the more nuanced USA antitrust law perspective. See, for example, the criticism by scholars of EU's blocking of the GE-Honeywell merger, which as approved by US regulators. THF 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No acknowledgement of criticism of price discrimination law and the de facto abandonment of that cause of action in the US. THF 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 3a

 * "An example of this could be offering rebates to industrial customers who export sugar that your company sells, but not to Irish customers, selling in the same market as you are in." does not parse, and is probably inaccurate once written to parse. THF 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No acknowledgement of the central tenet of 21st-century American antitrust policy, as expressed by regulators and Spectrum Sports: "The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself." THF 11:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Eurocentric; EC-regulators' view of the world discussed, while contrary American views are not. (E.g., conglomerate mergers, where the EC decision to block the GE-Honeywell merger was roundly criticized by American regulators and academics.  See discussion in conglomerate merger article.) THF 11:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Public sector regulation" section is entirely Eurocentric, has no discussion of American views, and perhaps doesn't belong in this article at all: in the US, public utility regulation is considered a separate field from antitrust. THF 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 3b

 * "Collusion and cartels" section written extraordinarily vaguely, has substandard discussion of the controversy over vertical agreements, and no mention of the extraordinary change in US law over the last thirty years with respect to vertical agreements. Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977), Broadcast Music Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma, Spectrum Sports Inc. v. McQuillan, State Oil Co. v. Khan, Verizon v. Trinko, and Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. As with the rest of the article, the breezy tone both confuses the discussion and is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  THF 12:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tacit collusion is not considered illegal price fixing in the US, e.g., Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, (though Posner argues that it should be). THF 22:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "contemporary issues" section discusses European views only. There are contemporary issues in American antitrust law.  It's also unclear why this is in the theory section, as no theory is discussed in the subsection.  THF 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Neo-classical synthesis" section seems nearly wholly extraneous, and is a gratuitous attack on neo-classical economics that has nothing to do with competition law as practiced in the US or Europe. It appears to violate the WP:NOR guidelines. It certainly violates the WP:NPOV guidelines, as the focus is on criticisms of neo-classical economics for some reason.  THF 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 3c

 * There is a consensus that the article is too long. So I am unsure why Wikidea is adding extraneous trivia about Smith and Mill that has no relevance to competition law today.  Break all this out into a history of competition law article.  I'll take an axe to it and move it if no one else does, but I have real deadlines in the next several days. THF 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there is a consensus about that at all, so please save your axe! And I think it's a bit unfair to call what I added "extraneous trivia" - it was an important view on competition law history, as the title in that section is the classical perspective. There are indeed a few comments that the article is long by necessity. I think that's right, because it's an important topic with many ins and outs. Please reconsider, and if you have any useful additions or comments, please do share them.  Wik idea  21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is extraneous trivia in a competition law article. Mill's opinions on corporations have nothing to do with the state of competition law today.  It's not even clear that they affected competition law in the past.


 * The article might be long by necessity, but given the number of notable things that are still absent from the article (like, for example, an accurate presentation of American antitrust law, there is no space for hundreds of words on trivia about 18th century opinion. Smith's views on collusion are notable because they are still cited today, but nothing else you've added is.


 * Separately, your good-article nomination is frivolous. Please look at WP:WIAGA before wasting the time of Wikipedia editors.  There are six criteria, and this article plainly flunks five of them. The article is B-minus-class, and isn't even close to A-class, much less GA-class. THF 21:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. But there have been a number of supportive comments haven't there, saying it's good. What would you put in? I think that so far as US competition law goes, it's quite alright, and the page links to the main article doesn't it? I just hope you aren't harbouring a grudge for being taken twice to the WP:COI page - let me make it clear, that's not relevant to me if you're willing to show some effort in making the page better - cases, statutes, etc. Sometimes it's good to move on, isn't it? If you say nothing else, please just add some positive suggestions about what you would like to see.  Wik idea  22:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are 25 separate positive suggestions above detailing the severe problems with this article. You've just chosen to ignore them.  That you brought frivolous claims to COI that were rejected is hardly surprising; you also brought a frivolous good-article nomination.  THF 05:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The 1933 date in the history section is factually incorrect; for example, Cournot discussed oligopoly in the 19th century. Antitrust Paradox has a comprehensive discussion of the legislative history of the Sherman Antitrust Act. THF 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 4
My attention has been drawn to the NPOV dispute on this page. I am pleased to see that discussion is ongoing on this talk page. I would urge all of the editors to continue working together so that all of the various points of view on the issues presented can be represented, as well as various geographical perspectives. This article appears to have drawn attention from people with a lot of relevant background expertise and I believe that we have the opportunity to make it a truly balanced and superior presentation if the editors will put aside any differences they have had an work together on it. Newyorkbrad 12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags
Please do not remove tags indicating a dispute (such as neutrality) without consensus that the dispute has been resolved. The tags exist to act as a warning to readers while the concerns raised are addressed on the talk page. It's fine if the person who fixes the problem is different than the person that points out the problem. Not everyone has the time or expertise to fix a neutrality problem even though they can point it out. Identifying problems for others to fix is an important task on Wikipedia. Thanks, Beland 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The above user

 * This is the third time User:TedFrank has deleted my comment below, the third time I replace. Wik idea  20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

personal attack deleted per WP:NPATHF 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those interested, please see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard  Wik idea  06:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I made all the specific changes that he wanted until today, beginning with the very first problem he pointed out. I am happy to continue changing parts of the article, but I think that it would not satisfy him in the slightest, or the politically motivated friends he is recruiting. I wrote this article out of a wish to improve the contribution to Wikipedia. My efforts stand in stark contrast to the belligerence of the above user.  Wik idea  20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a helpful contribution. TedFrank (signs as THF) certainly has a point of view, but you haven't pointed out any specific policy violations in his editing. Please work to edit the article collaboratively. If there are problems, please seek a 3O or mediations. Please do not make personal attacks - and please do not remove one another's comments. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 21:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks can be deleted, and I am deleting this one, which is a derail of the discussion. I would also like WP:NPA to be enforced, as this user has been warned multiple times now, and has disregarded the consensus that his accusations are false and libelous.
 * The record reflects that I made a general note that the page violated NPOV, Wikidea objected to the tag on the grounds that I didn't have any specific suggestions, I made specific suggestions and readded the tag, and Wikidea removed the tag again and started personally attacking me, and continues to do so, even after his false accusations were rejected at WP:COI/N, and by every third-party editor to evaluate the situation here. This is disruptive editing, and I object. THF 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've expressed my opinion on this situation. I may be unavailable for the next few hours, so please post to WP:ANI if, contrary to my hopes, this situation does not improve. Newyorkbrad 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Samuelson
I've removed the picture of Paul Samuelson, because neither his Wikipedia biography nor this article mention any work of his that relates specifically to competition law. -- Beland 05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed unnecessary background
I removed the following paragraph:
 * Most contemporary textbooks present the economic theory behind competition law as a relatively homogenous entity and that there is only one kind of economics. Economic theory in legal discourse usually reflects the predominant orthodoxy of economic thought, known in the field as the "neo-classical synthesis". While the second world war was being fought, economist Paul Samuelson wrote his Ph.D. on how old mathematical economics models could be reconciled with the newer political economic arguments of John Maynard Keynes. Whilst Keynsian economists advocated an interventionist role for the state, the new classical economists sought to reassert free market justifications based on Samuelson's twin assumptions of individuals behaving as rational maximisers of their self interest and the tendency of prices towards a market equilibrium.

These remarks might find a home in neoclassical economics, but they are rather off-topic here. Though there are references and everything, none of this relates specifically to competition law, nor is necessary background for the explanation of the neoclassical view of competition law. Also, the article neoclassical economics indicates that competition theory was already part of this school of thought by the 1930s, and as such the above paragraph would seem to be misleading or at least confusing. -- Beland 05:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticising vs. contributing
User:Wikidea wrote:
 * Once again, I'd like to see you contributing something rather than just criticising. When I say contribute, I mean the act involved in picking up a book, reading it, and writing something about that which is inside.  Wik idea  11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've already added new material to many articles, and as far as books How Democratic Is the American Constitution? comes to mind. I also tried to make incremental improvements to this article, but all of my changes were reverted, which is somewhat demotivating as far as making future contributions goes.

In general, I feel that "criticisms" and incremental editing are an important part of writing a collaborative encyclopedia, and should be welcomed rather than discouraged. When I contribute new material, I know that I can't get too attached to the particular way I've expressed myself, because others will change it, and hopefully make it more accessible to a broader audience. As the edit page warning says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

I also feel that identification of problems is an important task. The encyclopedia is way too large for anyone to read the whole thing, and there's a lot of value in tagging particular articles for particular problems. It makes it easier for people who have expertise or interest in a particular area to home in on things they can work on, it warns readers about rough patches (so they don't think a disputed passage is authoritative), and it encourages more passers-by to pitch in. Sure, it's better if people fix the problems they find, but complex problems can take a long time to untangle, and not everyone has the information immediately at hand to do the job right.

Wikipedia values contributions from everyone, whether or not they have contributed before, and even whether or not they are experts. Even novices and non-experts can help improve presentation without changing the underlying information. I think it's important to listen to even casual readers who find an article to be biased or confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report these symptoms means that the encyclopedia could probably be doing a better job.

It seems to me that requiring someone to read a book on a topic before tweaking or criticising an article, would exclude a large and important class of contributions. I think it's more important to focus on what is being said, rather than who is saying it, and evaluate criticisms on their merits. -- Beland 06:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary of theory section
I'd like to implement User:Plumbing's suggestion of writing a clear summary of "Competition law theory". The writing in the detailed subsections is not clear and not all the claims are referenced, so I'll have to ask the experts if this draft (based on the existing article text) is accurate:


 * Early theorists like Adam Smith focused only on the coercive aspects of fairness. The idea of market dominance or a monopolistic entity setting prices were not concerns; the important principle was that individual tradespeople were still able to conduct business without unreasonable interference from others.  In 1933, neoclassical economics was expanded to include the idea of monopoly power and imperfect competition.  More government regulation was justified by this school of thought to prevent what was seen as a kind of market failure, and to prevent abuse of market power from driving up consumer prices.  Later in the Twentieth Century, the Chicago School of thought advocated a less interventionist approach in an attempt to further maximize consumer welfare.  Firms with strong market power (or even monopolies, in the strongest version) that achieve economies of scale or promote technological progress, advocates argued, could be beneficial to consumers, though competing businesses might suffer.  Some also argued that anti-trust laws should be extended to trade unions, also on the grounds that it would benefit consumers (by lowering wages and thus long-term consumer prices).

There seems to be something missing here, or perhaps I've gotten the date wrong. If neoclassical economics didn't even cover imperfect competition until 1933, what was the economic theory which justified the landmark Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890? Are there any other gaps? -- Beland 08:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The 1933 date is factually incorrect; for example, Cournot discussed oligopoly in the 19th century. Antitrust Paradox has a comprehensive discussion of the legislative history of the Sherman Antitrust Act. THF 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is quite right, I'm not sure where that sentence came from and if I wrote it I'm not sure what I was thinking! (though I don't do double spaces, so I don't think it was me). So far as the Sherman Act goes though, it came from the old restraint of trade doctrine. As with a lot of things, I think, the theory often develops to justify the prior practice. For instance in the States, Keynes didn't write the General Theory until the mid thirties but it was latched onto by policy makers in FDR's government as a welcome theoretical backup to the spending programmes to get out of the Depression.  Wik idea  00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

EU sections
I've noticed a trend of comparing EU law to US law. I don't think that's necessarily an appropriate way in which to explain EU law to a new-comer, particularly one who doesn't have a background in US anti-trust.

When I have some time I'll try and add some more to the EU sections, but if before then anyone has the time and inclination, I think it would help to give some of the competition law sections a renewal. By the by, Article 81 is not the be all and end all of 'competition' law in the EU, Article 82 & 83 also play a role. Key definitions of the terms used in the article are missing, I note a near total lack of cases that support statements.... *sigh*. Also, to say that the Commission no longer has a 'monopoly' on bringing cases is a misunderstanding of the way the system has been reformed. There are now National Competition Authorities, but the Commission may still investigate at its own discretion. This makes the system de-centralized and is supposed to aid in the detection and enforcement of competition rules.

Any discussion of EU competition law should also be mentioning the advent thereof in Germany, and how its influence can be felt in some of the competition rules that exist today. In addition, Sarkozy's statement is irrelevant and off-topic.

That all said, the article is in decent shape, and gives enough detail for the budding reader. Now it just needs a polish to become a fantastic article. Sephui 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit: I'll soften my statements as regards Article 82, though it could do with a better explanation. Also, treaty references should be rendered as Article 82 EC, not TEC.
 * It would be helpful for students and amateur researchers if there were some link or some indication what the cryptic "EC" or "TEC" means. -- Beland 01:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What, that they stand for the treaty to which they refer? If that's what you mean I suppose I could work something like that in. Sephui 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to help here, the terms are really interchangeable, and often you see both EC and TEC. It just means "European Communities" or "Treaty of the European Communities" (i.e. the Treaty of Rome). This is distinct from what's known as the Treaty of the European Union. Under EU law there's a somewhat complex three pillar structure - the first was established in the Rome treaty (1952), and deals with social and economic policy mainly. The second and third deal with internal security and then foreign policy, which were added after the Maastricht convention in 1992. But it's quite right, this should have been made clear.  Wik idea  00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

EU law section 2
European Union law Main article: European Community competition law

The signatories to the Treaty of Rome which covers EU competition laws In 1957 six Western European countries signed the Treaty of the European Community (EC Treaty or Treaty of Rome), which over the last fifty years has grown into a European Union of nearly half a billion citizens. The European Community is the name for the economic and social pillar of EU law, under which competition law falls. Healthy competition is seen as an essential element in the creation of a common market free from restraints on trade. The first provision is Article 81 EC, which deals with cartels and restrictive vertical agreements. Prohibited are... "(1) ...all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market..." Article 81(1) EC then gives examples of "hard core" restrictive practices such as price fixing or market sharing and 81(2) EC confirms that any agreements are automatically void. However, just like the Statute of Monopolies 1623, Article 81(3) EC creates exemptions, if the collusion is for distributional or technological innovation, gives consumers a "fair share" of the benefit and does not include unreasonable restraints (or disproportionate, in ECJ terminology) that risk eliminating competition anywhere. Article 82 EC deals with monopolies, or more precisely firms who have a dominant market share and abuse that position. Unlike U.S. Antitrust, EC law has never been used to punish the existence of dominant firms, but merely imposes a special responsibility to conduct oneself appropriately. Specific categories of abuse listed in Article 82 EC include price discrimination and exclusive dealing, much the same as sections 2 and 3 of the U.S. Clayton Act. Also under Article 82 EC, the European Council was empowered to enact a regulation to control mergers between firms, currently the latest known by the abbreviation of ECMR "Reg. 139/2004". The general test is whether a concentration (i.e. merger or acquisition) with a community dimension (i.e. affects a number of EU member states) might significantly impede effective competition. Again, the similarity to the Clayton Act's substantial lessening of competition. Finally, Articles 86 and 87 EC regulate the state's role in the market. Article 86(2) EC states clearly that nothing in the rules cannot be used to obstruct a member state's right to deliver public services, but that otherwise public enterprises must play by the same rules on collusion and abuse of dominance as everyone else. Article 87 EC, similar to Article 81 EC, lays down a general rule that the state may not aid or subsidise private parties in distortion of free competition, but then grants exceptions for things like charities, natural disasters or regional development.


 * My comments - I would start off the first paragraph like this:

In the Treaty of the European Community (EC Treaty or Treaty of Rome), various articles exist to govern competition within the European Union. Competition law is required in the EU to prevent distortion of the internal market (Article 3(1)(g) EC), which would otherwise threaten the existence and maintenance of a common market. The first provision is Article 81 EC, which deals with cartels and restrictive vertical agreements. Prohibited are... "(1) ...all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market..." Article 81(1) EC then gives five specific instances which are considered directly anti-competitive: (a) price fixing; (b) control of production, markets, development or investment; (c) sharing of markets/supply; (d) dissimilar trading conditions and (e) conditional offering of contract dependent upon the acceptance of unrelated trade agreements. Article 81(2) EC confirms that any agreements that fall under the preceding paragraph are void. An agreement is capable of being held lawful however if it can prove to fulfil one of the terms in Article 81(3): improvement of "production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress" as long as this gives consumers a "fair" benefit and does not impose unecessary restrictions on undertakings or provides the undertakings with the "possibilty of eliminating competition" as regards a particular product.

Article 82 deals with dominant firms who abuse their position. It is not unlawfil in itself to be a firm in a dominant position, as long as there is no conduct which "may affect trade between Member States" that is considered "incompatible" with the common market. Article 82(a-d) lists specific instances of abuse as price discrimination, exlusive dealing, price fixing and conditional contract offers. Under Article 83 EC, the European Council is empowered under a specific process to enact regulations or directives as it sees fit to further the internal market. It lists a variety of conditions under which this is permitted. The regulation ECMR Reg 139/2004, which controls mergers and acquisition in the community market was based on Article 83.

Finally, Articles 86 and 87 EC regulate the state's role in the market. Article 86(2) EC states clearly that nothing in the rules cannot be used to obstruct a member state's right to deliver public services, but that otherwise public enterprises must play by the same rules on collusion and abuse of dominance as everyone else. Article 87 EC, similar to Article 81 EC, lays down a general rule that the state may not aid or subsidise private parties in distortion of free competition, but then grants exceptions for things like charities, natural disasters or regional development.

Of course this could be a lot longer, but if it is meant to be roughly the length it is currently, this could just about suffice. Comments welcome, need to add links of course. I'm not too keen to get involved in the economic theory section (which appears to be the main bone of contention in this article) but I'll see what I can sift together after taking a look at some notes. Also, please note that I have taken out the comparisons to the US system deliberately. I personally find them innappropriate in a EU law section, particularly as it is this short, but if someone would like to state the case for keeping them in I'd be more than happy to consider it. Sephui 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

EXTREMELY unbalanced
Wow this page is unbalanced. Can some econ grad students help on this? I am not either democrat or republican, but this looks like it has been written by Cheney!!

Another go
I'm willing to try again with this and welcome help from everyone who has been discussing before, and I apologise for my part in the dispute that developed. Let's have another crack. Here are some comments.

1. I find some very positive statements amongst the rest of what was said, particularly from Newyorkbrad and Sephui.

2. On the introduction, per WP:LEAD it does need to be longer, and not have dead links in it (the red ones without pages, like exclusionary practices). I'm revising slightly what was said, in particular because of the monopolies case cited - I think it's an interesting case precisely because it was very controversial for the EU to rule against Microsoft with their "conglomerate power" theory, and since it generated so much criticism in the US! But let's make that clear. I am happy for another case to be substituted, but I reckon examples bring the intro to life more. (One of the jokes about that case, is that Microsoft had to release an edition of windows without the Media Player to "compete" against one with, and about 100 people bought it - probably all antitrust lawyers!)

3. The reference style I mentioned above. On the new section added at the beginning on US enforcement I think it's a good addition, but isn't quite appropriate for the start of a multi-jurisdictional article. It's been pasted into the page on US antitrust law, with the reference retained. More citations like that are exactly what I'm hoping to have, especially from people with access to new materials.

4. I've taken the tags down from the top of the page, and left the ones within specific sections. Can I please request that we raise the issues here on the talk page, and say which section precisely needs editting? If there is something I will work to make corrections where I'm told if I'm given the relevant pointers - I'm at your disposal.

5. What's obviously caused the most strife are the theory sections. Now that they've been changed, can I remove the neutrality dispute tag, because nothing seems to have happened there for a bit? If people would like to add more, please do!

6. I am restoring the current issues section (moved into "future directions" under the EU law). This is because I think it's a good way to conclude that section on the present state of things. Yes, it is a lot to do with EU law - but with a few additions it can be made multi-jurisdictional. There are so many countries racing to set up antitrust authorities. I of course know best what's happening in the back yard, so can I request that others' add what they know from theirs?

7. I think with some input from everyone this is en route to becoming a good article, and given a bit of time, let's make it one and put it in for nomination. As I said in 6. the current issues section needs and update, so does the public sector regulation, the cartels and monopolies sections need internationalising (so please help with US, Australian, Canadian etc cases!), the traditional perspective section needs proper references (I'm thinking of, for instance, John Stuart Mill's thoughts on the restraint of trade doctrine) and there are undoubtedly more detailed fixups to be done. Let's do it.  Wik idea  00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've raised 24 separate issues on the talk page, and 23 of them remain unaddressed. Others, including the problem of the article focusing disproportionately on European issues and the WP:NOT list of references, have been exacerbated.  Antitrust law redirects here, yet there is next to no discussion of antitrust law.  Please do not remove tags until there is a consensus to do so, and there is certainly no consensus when you refuse to discuss the problems after I went through a lot of trouble to be as specific as you asked. THF 03:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so let's make a start. I thought that most of the points raised before might have been addressed while I was away, so forgive me. Can we make a start with the worldwide tag? It's the stuff in part 4 that needs a lot more attention to worldwide material isn't it? Shall we put the tag there?  Wik idea  11:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more than one section, so it makes more sense to keep the tag at the top, rather than have five or six section tags, especially because of the antitrust law redirect. THF 11:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new style tag. Antitrust/competition law are just synonyms for one another. I'm still not sure which sections aren't global (other than part 4): the legal history treats every jurisdiction I could find, Romans, English, Mediaeval Europe (of course we didn't have a United States before, and the US was using the restraint of trade doctrine till the Sherman Act) - then there's the "today" section, which has a section for US competition law, EU, the rest of the world, and then international enforcement. Then you've got the theory section, which seems to deal with a range again. Could you tell me which part you've got in mind? Wik idea  12:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They may be synonyms for one another, but a user looking up antitrust won't find accurate information about American antitrust law here. The whole article needs a rewrite. THF 12:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So do you mean that it's only part 4 that's not adequate on a worldwide view, since that's the one dealing with the law part? Or better yet - which sections are ok one a worldwide basis? I'm just trying to target the parts you're worried about.  Wik idea  12:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I mean the entire article needs a rewrite from top to bottom. If I owned the page, I would scrap it and start from scratch, preserving maybe a heavily edited version of the history section.  Since no one owns the page, I'm looking for consensus. THF 12:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's putting it a bit too strongly. I am trying to find out what you would do (or have other editors do) rather than what you do not want. Criticism is good when it's constructive, and I'd welcome any more of that. I think we're both looking for consensus. :)  Wik idea  21:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I told you what I would do. I would scrap the current article and start over from scratch with a stub.  It's inaccurate, poorly written, poorly organized, omits important information, and includes irrelevant trivia, and that's before one gets to the NPOV and MOS problems.  The article needs a complete rewrite. THF 21:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And you're a fat right wing cunt.

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: yes
 * 2. Factually accurate?: no
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: yes
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: no
 * 5. Article stability? no
 * 6. Images?: yes

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply
First off I wish to note that me saying that the article was not accurate or neutral was based on the maintenance tags on the top of the article, as well as from the discussion on the article's talk page. Plainly there are disputes in terms of accuracy and point of view which need to be resolved before a proper review can commence. As reviewers, we're not here to resolve disputes, and any article that is under a dispute is considered 'unstable' and therefore does not fulfil the criteria of a good article (see no. 5 'stability' of WP:WIAGA and guideline 2 'accuracy' and 4 'neutrality').

Thus the issues need resolved before it can even undergo a detailed review. Once the disputes are resolved and the article is stable, I strongly encourage you to resubmit it for a review. It would be constructive if the person(s) that have issues with accuracy and neutrality state (or restate) what their issues, offer sources in support of their position and offer their proposed resolution. I will keep an eye on this article and this page and attempt to assist in my limited capacity.

You may wish to look at WP:Resolving disputes, in particular Requests for comment and Third opinion. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've stated the problems with accuracy and neutrality in great detail above. (I've also stated with great detail problems with the writing and with the "broad scope", which is both so broad as to include much irrelevant detail and trivia, but so narrow as to exclude important viewpoints, important issues, as well as an accurate view of American antitrust law).  Antitrust redirects to this article, but there is no accurate discussion of American antitrust law.  The article needs a complete rewrite from top to bottom: frankly, a stub would be better than what is here now.  Unfortunately, Wikidea refuses to collaborate (leaving wildly uncivil edits on my talk page like this one), and every time I try to edit an article he thinks he owns, I have to deal with a multitude of personal attacks and frivolous reports of me to administrators on the COI/N.  Note that this article already went through WP:DR, and both independent editors who commented agreed with me and disagreed with Wikidea's perception of article quality.  THF 21:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that the American doctrine is summarised in the article and fully covered in United States antitrust law. Possibly adding at the top of this article would resolve that issue? However it must be noted that Antitrust law is already mentioned and linked to in the intro of this article, which is the same way its handled on the former (the intro of American Antitrust law mentions and links to "competition law"). Or maybe create disambiguation page for Antitrust, where there's a link to both articles. Honestly, this specific point should not be a big issue.

Further, as a new comer to this discussion and from reading all the comments I cannot ascertain whose being less flexible and there really has not been any actual consensus on anything reached on this talk page, and further the comments on the COI page dealt mainly with personal issues and nothing seemed to be actually decided in regards to this article. If there are other discussions regarding this article I have not seen them as they're not mentioned on this page or I missed them.

I see the long list of complaints, and resignation by one party to simply scrap the article, however sometimes it's more constructive to edit the article yourself, especially if you have knowledge on the subject matter (WP:BOLD). Personally I would assist to balance the article, however while there is information given that disputes what's present in the article, there's no sources provided to support the claims. I will attempt some editing later and hopefully engage a larger body to assist in it as I think truncating a majority of this article would be a shame. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The user referred to, with the long list of complaints, seems to have retired from Wikipedia, following yet another failed attempt for arbitration where more of the same POV had been propogated. I'll be removing the tags the former user was putting up, and perhaps this article can start to improve once more! I will welcome all positive contributions!  Wik idea  19:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the removed tags was actually mine. I've gone ahead changed a part of the Chicago School section to address my factual and POV concerns.  I still have a problem with the part that implies that Bork originated the argument that antitrust laws protect competition not competitors (this proposition actually originated in a Supreme Court decision).  Bork did make that argument (after the decision came out) and I can't think of a good way to rephrase that part of the section.
 * 70.21.77.200 05:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Glad you made changes, to what's correct.  Wik idea  18:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is coming there towards a GA. Bearian 11:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Advice sought on interaction with more specific pages
Could experienced editors or Wikipedia policy enforcers (if there are such things) please tell me how this article should interact with pages like Article 81 and Article 82? Currently the EC law section of the competition law article seems to be a near-verbatim copy of these more specific articles, (and with serious errors duplicated in both). That cannot be right. But what is right? Should Article 81 and Article 82, corrected, be merged back here? Or should all the detailed competition law practice text move out of here to specific pages like those and presumably Sherman Antitrust Act? Or something else? Proz 06:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Wikidea [says "please go ahead and edit: that's better than leaving tags". I started to do that on Article 82, hence my query above on how to deal with the current duplication of content on competition law and [[Article 82]]. Proz 08:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Wikidea [says "Keep in mind though, that there's nothing dubious about what I've written there, and there's all footnotes". I don't want to do a THF-sized list so I'll just pick two of my "dubious" tags to justify for now:
 * * "If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share" is a misstatement of EC law (or at best seriously misleading). The footnote says "this was the lowest yet market share of a "dominant" firm, in BA/Virgin 2004".  Even if the footnote is true, it does not support the claim in the main text.  I don't think that readers should be expected to look at footnotes to decide how to interpret a main text claim.
 * * *[Wanadoo France] was forced to pay €10.35 for dropping its prices below its own production costs". For a start, "forced to pay" should probably be "fined", and the amount of the penalty is a factor of a million out.  But more importantly the impression given is that the claim was simply of "prices below production costs". This does not agree with my understanding of EC law on predatory pricing, and "production costs" is far from a straightforward idea in telecoms; so the claim is dubious.  The footnote is to the Court of First Instance case number (not even a link to the judgment or Commission decision).  The judgment has 285 paragraphs covering a wide range of topics, and the decision is not short either.  The footnote is not specific enough to support the claim.
 * Proz 08:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now removed the offending section as it duplicated European Community competition law and belonged there rather than here. Responses to Talk:European Community competition law please. Proz 09:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the EC competition law duplicated this page, because I put it there. As I said in my edit, reverting your massive deletions, the law pages are supposed to be a unified overview of the world - and that's what the practice section ought to provide. Instead of arguing, why don't you help out with changing the content to deal with stuff going on in other jurisdictions? (Although I'm not sure where you're from). Getting to these points above,


 * (1) Read about the BA/Virgin case - it's pretty rich to assume it's incorrect, and then to complain that readers shouldn't believe footnotes. If you happen to know what is true, then I suggest you tell us.


 * I bow to your knowledge of the BA/Virgin case. My dispute is with the claim in the article that "If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share[71] then there is a special responsibility ...".  I read it as asserting that a firm with a market share above 39.7% has a dominant position simply because of that market share. Which of the many pages generated by the BA/Virgin case should Wikipedia readers read to confirm the accuracy of this claim? Proz 13:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what you're getting at - but instead of getting stroppy, why not just change it to what you think the case is? You're saying (I hope) that you could potentially have a market share of more and not be considered dominant, am I right? Fine! Adjust the sentence, by all means, and then I'll be the one bowing to your knowledge! Won't that be fun! And then the article will have improved a bit too!  Wik idea  19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we must be careful not to use numbers to suggest a 'safety' level, which this at the moment otherwise invites the reader to assume. Hoffman-La Roche [1979] E.C.R. 461: "The existence of a dominant position may derive from several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily determinative but among those factors a highly important one is the existence of a very large market share." Sephui 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (2) You're more than welcome to change the wording about the Wanadoo case, and the typo, leaving out a million. Once again, you're being deliberately scathing. That's unnecessary, so stop it.
 * (3) Here's the Commission press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/03/1025&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en
 * (4) If you find anything else in there which you suspect, and if you're here to improve it, then please have a go at getting some of the incomplete citations. That would be helpful. Wik idea  11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, and if you think anything else in there is factually innaccurate, tell me soon or I'm going to take that mistaken template down.  Wik idea  11:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Public sector regulation
I have [deleted] the section entitled public sector regulation. User:Wikidea says on User talk:Proz that it was a stub and should be retained as a stub. I don't think that what I deleted was a stub for anything relevant here. We could have stub sections entitled "Restriction on State subsidies" or "Competition law for public services" (two quite different things) but I think I'd rather fix the basic competition law that is there before adding this sort of stuff. Proz 07:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious reference: Wilberforce (1966)
From the article I thought that "Wilberforce, Richard (1966) The Law of Restrictive Practices and Monopolies, Sweet and Maxwell" might be worth a read.

The closest match on amazon.com is from 1957. The Sweet & Maxwell site does not find any author called Wilberforce. Any ideas? Proz 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the closest one I've found is also the 1957 version. But I also found a reference to it in JSTOR, purporting to be the 1966 version (via google). Unfortunately don't have organization access to the article, but I presume that its a second edition. Sephui 10:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the references section please. Wilberforce was a leading judge in the House of Lords, and yes, the book is real. In 1966 it's the second edition. It's the best treatment of history I had to hand. I don't appreciate your pomposity, Proz, by the way.  Wik idea  10:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there an ISBN number or bar code on the book? Proz 13:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't have it here now - but this might be it, from isbndb.com - ISBN 0421193808  Wik  idea  14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here it is on the Oxford catalogue: http://library.ox.ac.uk/find?ISBN=0421193808 ; and just for good measure, here on the Cambridge one: http://newton.lib.cam.ac.uk:7903/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=1&ti=1,1&SC=Author&SA=Wilberforce%2C%20Richard%20Orme%20Wilberforce%2C%20Baron%2C%201907%2D&PID=7BQ_o8azzoVtEv18ndz4mPAmtieD&SEQ=20070912161515&SID=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs) 15:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Unfortunately, the Oxford and Cambridge links are duds ("Found 0 matches" and "There is no bib Data Attached to this record"), and feeding the number into isdndb.com returns a 1973 book which does not seem to be in other catalogues (I even tried the British Library as it appears to be a UK book).  The reference as currently stated (1966) does not seem to be a verifiable source. Proz 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For crying out loud! Yes, sorry, the library databases seem to time out. It would then seem that you need to try finding it for yourself.  Wik idea  08:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a valid link Proz - at the Uni of Notts Lib. 2nd ed, 1966. Sephui 07:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sephui. Sorry for making you search for it; I was being led astray by the wrong ISBN and Oxford link above.  The University of Nottingham's library catalogue is a pleasure to use. Proz 21:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Competition law practice section
I deleted the "competition law practice" from the article. User:Wikidea has put it back, with the edit summary "But back in Proz's massive and unwarranted deletions. See the Wikiproject law page - the law pages ought to be a unified treatment; that's what the practice section needs to be". Per WP:BRD we now need to discuss.

One point of clarification before addressing the substance: where in the Wikiproject law page is there a requirement to have a practice section of this nature, separate from a "today" section? Call me pompous idiot if you like but I cannot immediately see it in WP:LAW. Proz 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No-one is calling you an idiot yet ; I think that the today section serves well as an overview to the main jurisdictions enforcing competition law, and the main sections (i.e. in the US, it starts in the Clayton and Sherman Acts, in the EU in Art 81 and 82) and then there need to be sections explaining the progression of cases which develop the law "in practice". Please also see the replies I've made to your comments 2 sections up. I'm going to take away the "factually innaccurate" tag unless you still think there's something still wrong there (if so, please change it directly to what is right) but once again, I'm confident that it's correct.  Wik idea  14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On the jurisdictions, see the WP template at the top of this page (hidden now amongst the rest).  Wik idea  14:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The sections as written seem like they could be condensed into one. Incidentally, being unable to find a source does not make one pompous, Wikiedea. Knock off the name calling. Cool Hand Luke 15:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Knock off your attacks. I'm not taking any advice from you.  Wik idea  19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not attacking you. You just ought not accuse other users of things like that. It poisons the environment and makes them defensive and adversarial. Your unfunny joke about not calling user an idiot "yet" does not help. Cool Hand Luke 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As I already suggested in the competition peer review (link at top of page, now archived), we should split the competition in practice section into jurisdictions. My logic follows: at the moment there are complaints that it doesn't represent a world-wide view. It does not, and as far as I see, will not be able to do so. Why? Because the sections become long and confusing. When am I following the EU strand, as opposed to the US? Adding further, can I suggest that we retain the competition in practice material on a sub-page, with a view to merging it in their respective parent articles, with the jurisdictions clearly separated out. This will also help when someone comes by to add other jurisdictions (I would like to see China & India represented here, for good measure. Plus, no word from Australia?!). Sephui 18:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sephui, I think that once you get more involved in Competition law, you realise that one or two things you are suggesting don't really make sense. I'm trying to put this carefully - if you go to China, there isn't really that much of a competition law - and in India as well, it's significantly underdeveloped too. There is an excellent book called Global Competition Law and Economics by Einer Elhauge and Damien Geradin (2007) which does exactly what you say isn't possible (the US edition is called "Global antitrust..."). And even if there wasn't several books on the matter, dozens of academic departments around the world, and a Wikipedia editor here telling you it is possible, the Wikiproject law specifically says it ought to be a pan-jurisdictional.  Wik idea  19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the title, I'll take a look when I'm near a library again! As for China: yes, I'm aware there's very little competition law, though it is taking steps in the right direction. That alone makes it a valueable addition. As for India - well it was a throwaway comment, so I'll accept that! Taking a look at the Wikiproject law page are you referring to: "Key areas of concern include consistency in defining concepts across multiple jurisdictions and proper categorization of articles."? Because I agree with that statement, but it may just be a case of us wanting to go about it in a different way. I'm not advocating deletion of the material, just redeployment. Sephui 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Chicago School & Harvard School
Judging by the notes I have on the topic (which are rather lacking), we seem to have missed the point of the chicago economic thought section. I don't have access to any advanced material on the topic, and would welcome the input from economists/anti-trust lawyers more familiar with this school of thought.

Chicago School: The key to better competition is the removal of market entry barriers. This school of thought has been predominant in the US & UK/EU since the 70s.
 * Market entry barriers cause imperfect competition conditions, not the structure of the market (which is the Harvard school of thought).
 * Concentration of undertakings can lead to economies of scale, which is better for the consumer, as opposed to prohibitive.

Harvard School: Market structure is main factor affecting competition in a market. Monopolistic and oligopolistic markets are not competitive, therefore prevent them from becoming dominant & prevent market concentration.

I've bolded predominant because I think it is imperative that we get it right. The section is currently full of trivia, and it doesn't actually state WHAT the school of thought is. Clearly these are skeleton notes, but the discrepancy shows. As I said, I don't have the resources on hand to clarify, expand and summarise the material. Please be bold and add away. Sephui 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Which text did your course use? Craig and de Burca? Jones and Suffrin? You've got some good points there. To be a bit more specific, I think that the Chicago School (among many other things, not just trivia) assert market structures are not often imperfect; it is only when there are significant barriers to new competitors entering the market that markets fail. In other words this is a more "fundamentalist" view of market competition, and human behaviour with consistent preferences on which economic models can be based - that the paradigm is that markets allocate resources in the most efficient way; although more recently this has shifted quite a deal (in Chicago too) with a lot of talk about information problems.  Wik idea  19:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it was Chalmers et al. See, I'd just like to point to what you've said here - it is far clearer than what is currently under that section. We need to say what the Chicago School actually said, not that it was against the harvard school or some other theory then in currency. Posner & Bork are relevant to the main article of chicago school, not to this one. The section needs to justify how competition law has either been shaped or influenced by the chicago school. At the moment, to me, it doesn't. Sephui 19:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent book there Sephui - I've added it to the list, and I'll see what I can do. I was doing a bit with it on the EC regulation page I began; although, the Public sector regulation part has been deleted here. I'll see what I can do.  Wik idea  09:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comparing the Chicago section with Neo-classical synthesis shows precisely how the Chicago section is mostly trivia. Whereas neo-classical synthesis starts by stating what the theory is, the Chicago section never really does that and instead talks about books and people in the Chicago school. Formerly, this made more sense because the section was not really and encyclopedia entry. It was more of a polemic and sought only to show that the Chicago school was associated with cranks, Reagan, and other dastardly conservatives. Any work you can put into it would be appreciated. Cool Hand Luke 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Literally, what I've written above is the sum of my knowledge & notes on the matter. I can make no promises, as I'll be pressed for time with real life when I get to the library where I'd have access to relevant information. I've left a note on the talk page of the WikiProject:Economics though, asking for some help. Hopefully someone can come through. In the meantime, the section should probably be tagged with something? I haven't the foggiest where one could get those from.... Sephui 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't remember if it was Greenspan or the entire Chicago School, but wasn't one of the main concerns that a company competes heavily because the prize at the end of the competition is a monopoly (you defeat your competitors and you're the only one left). With that prize removed, there'd be less competition.  70.21.77.200 06:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Competition law theory
Come to think of it, it's probably going to be a better idea to start a theory page - the material here will inevitably become quite long, and it's worth having a page in which the many different schools of thought and critiques can expand beyond what could be accomodated on a general page - I just deleted the "libertarian critique" sentence, for the sake of not having new section on this page, but that wouldn't be necessary on a new page. Thoughts?  Wik idea  11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you're supposedly not taking advise from me, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. However: I thought this page was already supposed to be about theory with brief summaries of practice for United States antitrust law and European Community competition law. What do you propose this article be about? Seems a little redundant. Cool Hand Luke 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think its a bad idea to have an extra page either, this page can be essentially a mini-portal for all related Competition matters. Outlining the key economic theories and an introduction to the vital laws. Sephui 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good-o. The Competition law theory page I think can function as a place for the theory (of which there is plenty more) to expand, without cluttering the current content here (which could most probably be slimmed - e.g. old and new perspectives?). By the way I take all constructive advice, and anyone can advise me (although it'd be nicer if the people doing it weren't pursuing a 30-day block). :)  Wik idea  00:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)