The number of smart phones devices in the world is set to hit four hundred million by next year. If this is achieved, the rate of growth for this industry will be about twenty per cent. This makes the smart phone industry one of the most lucrative industries today.
Recently, a landmark ruling on a case concerning major smart phone industry players raised concerns about the future of this industry. In the ruling, giant phone manufacturer Apple was granted the rights to some strategic patents. In the flurry of the responses that followed, there was concern whether the smart phone market was becoming monopolistic.
The main competition in the smart phone market mostly concerns the device’s operating system (Kenney and Pon 240). Previously, Microsoft had held the biggest market share of operating systems. This changed when the iPhone was introduced to the market.
It is then that the demand for the Windows Mobile operating system began to decline. The popularity of the Android operating system started to change the direction this industry was taking. This meant Google had entered the competitive smart phone market. Android was also favored by Microsoft’s previous customers like Dell and Motorola.
The rise in demand for Android operating systems has been fast and unprecedented. Statistics indicate that four of the leading smart phone manufacturers will start using Android in the near future. It was indicated that while the number of devices using Android was on the rise, the number of those using Microsoft’s system was on the decline.
This was one of the earliest indicators that the market was becoming monopolistic. The reason for this disparity was mainly the fact that while Google’s product was a free to use open source operating system, all Microsoft products came at a fee. The Android operating system could also be customized by hardware manufacturers.
After Android’s entry into the smart phone market, the stage was therefore set for major competition between these three major players. However, there was the issue of patents. There is a silent partnership between Apple and Microsoft. It is also in the interest of both companies to eliminate Google from the market. This is because Google’s business system goes against that of these companies.
Google does not make money by selling software, instead it gives away its software and depends on advertising revenue. This business model poses a potential threat to the other competitors. This is because it is harder to compete against a free product.
This rise in competition led to Apple improving its new iPhone products to unrivalled proportions (West and Mace 290). The present situation is that Apple has managed to turn around this competition and emerge at the top. The demand for Android products is on the decline while iPhone products are practically flying off the shelves. This year’s Apple end of year results were more than impressive.
What was more impressive was the fact that the company’s iPhone sales accounted for more than 50% of the total smart phones sold in the United States. This would have seemed unlikely just a few years ago. It is also the latest indicator that competition in this market could be turning monopolistic. It is also said that Apple is in the process of becoming a trillion dollar company in the near future.
However while all the above facts point towards a budding Apple monopoly, it is its recent court case against its competitors that has sent the strongest message yet. During this court case, Apple had gone to court seeking to remove competing products from the market. This action was in opposition to that of negotiating favorable licensing terms with the involved companies.
The argument about Apple being a monopoly is supported by the fact that Samsung, the defendant in this lawsuit had not refused to pay licensing fees. Analysts have argued that this lawsuit was not motivated by monetary gains but the need to create a monopoly in the market. By targeting Google’s major partners, Apple can be able to decapitate its main competitor.
While Apple is in possession of major patents in the smart phone industry, Google possesses only the recent acquired Motorola patents. Apple’s gentleman’s agreement with Microsoft also plays a major role in this monopoly plot. It is also in Microsoft’s best interest to have Google’s market share reduced.
The fact that Google is not in possession of major patents it can horse trade with its fellow manufacturers makes the company a weak market leader.
In an indication that Apple and Microsoft were determined to weaken Google, the two companies ensured Google could not purchase strategic patents that were recently being sold by Nortel (Chia 343). This was a clear indication that the competition in the smart phone market was becoming monopolistic.
The stakes are high in the smart phone market. All the companies are determined to cash in on the boom being witnessed in this industry. This has prompted some companies to apply monopolistic tendencies to this competition. This monopoly is not limited to one particular company. All stakeholders seem determined to make sure they end up with the whole market share and nothing less.
Works Cited
Chia, Thomas. “PATENT LAW: Fighting the Smartphone Patent War with RAND- Encumbered Patents.” Berkeley Tech. LJ 27.1 (2012): 209-981. Print.
Kenney, Martin, and Bryan Pon. “Structuring the smartphone industry: Is the mobile internet OS platform the key?.” Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 11.3 (2011): 239-261. Print.
West, Joel, and Michael Mace. “Browsing as the killer app: Explaining the rapid success of Apple’s iPhone.” Telecommunications Policy 34.5 (2010): 270-286. Print.
There are various reasons for the firms to continuously inspect their manufacturing process and search for improvement. All of the reasons could be considered part of the one large argument that competition drives innovation. Therefore, the first reason which stands out the most is the need to remain competitive. Every company and organization is seeking a niche in which they can outperform their rivals and gain the most market share in the sector. Consequently, if one firm were to remain stagnant, their status quo would be challenged by the competitor and eventually lead to the extrusion from the market.
Furthermore, the ongoing technological progress constantly changes the market environment and forces companies to search for improvement areas. Every day, a new technology emerges that renders the previous product obsolete in months. At the same time, new limitations on the company’s manufacturing processes are placed due to the global environmental problems. Governments place limitations on the factories’ emissions or waste disposal methods to reduce pollution and pursue sustainable production methods. As a result, businesses must modernize and develop their products and manufacturing to satisfy the industry standards or pursue greater profits while replacing the old technology. This reason is interconnected with the growing culture of consumerism. Customers have an insatiable desire for new products and place unachievable expectations on them. They are dissatisfied with any product, prompting other companies to develop better solutions. If the company keeps carrying the same product for too long, it will eventually be phased out of the market.
In today’s reality and business climate, the old adage” If it is not broken, do not fix it” is no longer applicable. If a company waits for anything to go wrong, it will suffer financial and market losses as other companies take advantage of their competitors’ weaknesses. At the same time, governmental authority places high emphasis on sustainable market solutions due to the pursuit of an eco-friendly environment.
American culture is characterized by strong individualism, as opposed to the collectivist culture of Eastern countries. Therefore, it may be assumed that competition is over-emphasized in American society. In the US, competition can be found in various areas of life and at different stages of life. For example, in families with several children, kids compete with their siblings from a young age in order to get a toy or receive parents’ attention. In adolescence, teenagers compete with each other in academic achievements, dating, appearance, and so on. Competition is the most evident in competitive sports, such as football or baseball. Later, young people compete with each other when trying to enter a college or a university. Adults are engaged in rivalry when applying for a job or attempting to get a promotion or a pay rise. Apart from that, Americans’ emphasis on individualism encourages them to be better in their personal lives: they want to get a better home, smarter children, more high-paying jobs than their peers do. Thus, competition accompanies Americans throughout their lives, bringing both positive and negative results.
The main advantage of competition is that it encourages people to do their best and constantly improve themselves. Adolescents try to achieve better results in their studies and engage in extracurricular activities because they know that it will become their competitive advantage during college admission or job application. Adults work harder to increase their earnings to improve their living conditions and find themselves in the better part of society. Sometimes, competition can foster human development; for example, when children compete and argue with siblings, they begin to realize that other people’s thinking differs from theirs, which advances their own thinking (Berger, 2019, p. 561). Competing with others can also contribute to children’s physical development. For example, the best way for children to develop running skills is by chasing each other or participating in a race instead of running alone (Berger, 2019, p. 632). Competition is part of “active social play,” which is associated with children’s emotional, physical, and intellectual development (Berger, 2019, p. 632). Thus, competition has benefits for individuals because it encourages them to become better versions of themselves and contributes to human development.
At the same time, competition has disadvantages that may disrupt an individual’s psychological well-being. For example, adolescents always look at their peers in search of friends and for developing their self-concept (Berger, 2019, p. 873). Unfortunately, not all adolescents have a realistic and positive self-concept; some of them develop low self-esteem. When such individuals get into a situation involving competition, they attempt to “protect themselves by not trying out” (Berger, 2019, p. 1047). Hence, competition is a negative phenomenon for people with low self-esteem because it discourages them from taking action. As a result, children may lag behind their peers in social, emotional, and physical development, and adults may miss valuable opportunities for improving their current situation. It is argued that competition is beneficial only when it encourages people to make their personal achievements, but when it praises only the best one in a group, it discourages others from trying (Berger, 2019, p. 1418). Therefore, it may be concluded that competition is a positive phenomenon when people make efforts to outperform their own past results. However, when competition disregards one’s personal achievements, it has a negative impact on human development.
Reference
Berger, K. S. (2019). Invitation to the life span (4th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
With escalating support for democracy and capitalism, value of competition has been absorbed in the society. Competition has emerged as an economic aspect in the society. Competition has positive and negative effects on the society. Notably, competition has reduced cooperation levels in the society. Loewen attempts to provide answers that revolve around the structure of the society.
He discusses different behaviors of people and impacts of social structures on the society. The book provides ideal recommendations on changes that the society should adopt. The essay will highlight benefits of competition in the society. Negative aspects associated with overemphasis on competition will also be presented. Advantages of cooperation and convergence of ideas will be scrutinized. A valid conclusion on whether the society can adopt cooperation model will be made.
Discussion
Diversity is one of positive effects of competition on the society. There is a variety of products and services bringing the increase of consumer satisfaction. Diversity is embedded on innovation or creativity that every firm adopts, so as to enjoy competitive advantage. Prices of products and services are reduced, thus affecting consumers positively. Notably, price is competitive and salience is proportional to price of products. In this regard, consumers are more likely to purchase products that are cheap than buy the expensive ones. As a result, products are relatively cheaper since there are available substitutes as opposed to a situation of monopoly. High quality has also been embraced by firms as a way of satisfying consumers. Firms compete to deliver goods of high quality and low price to consumers so as to enjoy large market share.
Competition has shifted the focus from compliance to ethics. Businesses not only concentrate on satisfying existing legal concepts, but also wining over consumers. In process of maintaining loyalty and salience, businesses assume humanistic approach of doing what is morally right and acceptable by the society. Moreover, there is an inclination to the emotional aspect as the focus is on ensuring that products foster a long term and intrinsic relationship with consumers. As opposed to monopoly, competition ensures that needs of consumers are met in the best way possible. Businesses have to establish trust with consumers and ensure that presence of their products is felt rather than seen.
Competition has shifted the focus from services provided to relationship fostered. Competitive advantage is dependent on the extent, to which a firm adopts emotional approach. For marketing strategies to be effective, emotional element has to be present. Adoption of emotion by firms has increased consumer satisfaction thereby benefiting the society. Despite emergence of many firms, consumer’s welfare has been addressed in a humane way. All firms focus on fulfilling needs of consumers, as opposed to overemphasis on economic growth in a situation of monopoly. In this regard, competition fosters growth of many humanistic traits like honesty.
In spite of many benefits associated with competition in the society, there are negative aspects associated with the concept especially when it is overemphasized. “Stressing how middle class we are today is extremely problematic” (Loewen 206). Competition advocacy means that new entrants are encouraged to engage in business activities. Since consumer satisfaction is a competitive process, new entrants focus on meeting demands. It should, however, be noted that some approaches reduce willpower and rationality of consumers, thereby affecting the society negatively. For instance, some firms may take advantage of the fact that target consumers are middle class earners and have a need for cheap products. In such a case, competition would lead to emergence of products that are of low quality and price.
Despite the desire for cheap products, quality and safety should be emphasized, if competition is to be of help to the society. Suboptimal competition that reduces willpower of consumers, negatively affects the society. Further, increased population reduces cooperation and cohesion in the society. Cooperation of firms is associated with collective economic growth of society. Diversification is not always likely to affect the society positively. For instance, combined efforts by collection of firms are likely to benefit the society wholesomely and address the issue of classism. Over inclination on competition, on the other hand, promotes success of individuals and not groups.
Selfishness is one of the negative human aspects that are likely to arise, when competition is overemphasized. Competition means that individual firms will concentrate on their own satisfaction and profitability. Since competition is money driven, firms will only focus on achieving prestige and satisfaction. Lack of cohesion or cooperation will increase incidence of selfishness. There will be reluctance in combination of efforts and resources, since all firms will have similar goals of profitability that they want to enjoy individually.
It should be noted that competitive advantage can only be maintained, if there is rivalry especially among firms of the same industry. Competition that fails to satisfy the needs of consumers and entire society fosters negative human aspects. Dishonesty is also likely to be fostered especially in reducing will power of consumers. Increased competition will reduce business opportunities and new entrants will opt to engage in deceitful or unethical acts, so as to be able to secure market share. Deceitful acts like dishonesty will not draw collective concern, since individual firms concentrate only on their activities.
Despite increased advocacy for competition, it is not likely to affect the society in a positive way. As a matter of fact, a more collaborative model that emphasizes on cooperation has been preferred by most scholars. It should, however, be noted that adoption of a cooperative model is extremely difficult with increased competition. Profitability is one of the reasons why it is difficult for the society to adopt cooperative values. Every company focuses on maximization of profits and combined efforts would mean equal share of returns. In spite of the fact that combined efforts are likely to yield more results, individual firms prefer enjoying undivided benefits.
Supremacy and brand dominance that are sought by most firms would be of no value, if cooperative model was to be adopted by the society. Further, it is difficult to assume a cooperative model since firms are not equal. For instance, those firms that are enjoying a competitive advantage would find it hard to combine their efforts with new entrants. Some companies may lack sufficient capital required in establishment of a cooperative relationship. Creativity would also render cooperation of firms difficult. Strategies of diversification are not uniform and it would be impossible to cover all of them in a unified approach.
Despite the fact that human beings are social, cooperation is not automatic. Human beings live in societies that are shaped by many factors including identity and classicism. Human beings identify with social environment and perceive people from other places as foreigners. “Social class determines how people think about society” (Loewen 209). Behaviors and thoughts of people are influenced by social structures. In spite of the fact that people from different places socialize, cooperation is a process that calls for more identity and intimacy.
For instance, development of human beings is influenced by different surroundings. Notably, cooperation is difficult since human beings are influenced by environments differently and do not have similar interests. Further, individualization perception that focuses on personal victory discourages incidence of cooperation. Just like firms, individuals feel that they can succeed on their own and prefer individual approach to cooperative one. Moreover, people have different qualities that cannot exist in cooperation but assume individual approach.
Social factors like classism and racism also reduce the degree of cooperation. Human beings are influenced by social structures that they live in. Since the society focuses more on competition than cooperation, human beings will tend to compete rather than cooperate. Competition is associated with individual success as opposed to cooperation that highlights group success. In this regard, competition is more important to human beings than cooperation.
Competition is preferred to cooperation due to existing social structures. It should, however, be noted that adoption of a cooperative model is likely to lead to more benefits in the society than the competitive approach. “Social class is most important variable in the society” (Loewen 207). It determines the degree of cooperation and competition. Cooperation addresses needs of all people in the society, while competition favors welfare of those who are well endowed. Cooperation further transcends beyond objective of economic growth to social and psychological needs of the society. Cooperation would ensure combined efforts by firms in the society hence increased profitability. For instance, firms could combine their capital and share operational costs, thereby targeting a wider market.
In this regard, a firm that previously had insufficient capital could end up venturing in business hence economic growth. Firms that have already established markets at a national level could expand to the global level through cooperation. As a matter of fact, cooperation has been associated with success by most scholars in recent years. Cooperation is the best way to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor. Cooperation is likely to ensure collective benefits for society at a global level, as opposed to competition that benefits few affluent.
Our society has been influenced by social structures like competition to a large extent. As much as cooperation model might be attractive to the society, the process of its adoption would be difficult. “Few high schools offer anthropology courses” (Loewen 297). In this regard, social structures should be tamed in a way that promotes cooperation. Such changes can be interpreted as a process of taming the society. Despite the fact that taming the society would be a difficult process, it is possible to restructure the society.
Social structures are made by human beings and restructuring would mean reviewing existing organs. For instance, environment that influences human development can be manipulated in desired way. Incorporation of desired aspects in social environments like curriculum is a viable way to restructure the society. It should, however, be observed that results can only be realized gradually and not instantly. In this regard, young or future generations are likely to demonstrate a perfect version of the desired structure of the society.
Conclusion
Competition is one of existing social structures in the society today. The concept is associated with positive and negative effects in the society. Ideal competition promotes satisfaction of consumers, but overemphasis is likely to harbor adverse effects. Cooperation approach is better than competition model since it ensures collective benefits. Cooperation narrows the gap between poor and affluent significantly. The model is, however, difficult for most firms, since economic gain assumes high priority in the society. Despite the fact that taming is a long term strategy, it is the most ideal approach to restructure the society.
Works Cited
Loewen, James. Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. New York: New York Press, 1995. Print.
The main issue of the study is to understand the reproductive pattern of male fishes in the context of sperm competition. Fishes show a wide variety of strategies in sperm competition. Reproductive patterns, such as parasitic reproductive behavior, gonochorism, sequential hermaphroditism, simultaneous hermaphroditism, and internal and external fertilization, are adopted by different fishes. The main question of the study is to understand the preference or pattern of reproductive design that determines the fertilization process.
The author developed a threefold observation sequence on the male fishes based on behavioral, physiological, and morphological adaptations. The study included 24 families that consisting of 123 species of male fishes where salmons were the main fishes of interest. The observations were noted and backed by adequate literature. There were two methods used in the study. The first was sampling and quantitative method. The second one was the analysis and evaluation of another research.
However, only 3 out of 53 research papers used in the study were more than a decade old and even they from were highly peer-reviewed journals. Thus, all the latest findings were used in the study to find the behavioral adaptations, physiological and morphological adaptations of the male fishes.
The fundamental theory of the study proposed that the time, space, and opportunity of the fishes were the main determinates of the reproductive pattern of male fishes in the context of sperm competition. It was also determined that as there were a greater size and morphological differences among the fishes of the same species, the adaptation of the pattern of reproduction followed the most opportunistic mode of fertilization. For organisms, evolution is a tool that has constructed the basic construction of sexual behaviors based on behavioral, physiological, and morphological adaptations.
It was found in the study that the fishes utilized various aspects of adaptation. It was found that in the context of taxa there is a use of both internal and external fertilization following the opportunity. Sexual behaviors were wide and there was a good amount of flexibility available and utilized. A third finding suggests that fishes utilize a pattern of parasitic approach in reproduction, and it is omnipresent in all parameters of the reproductive process of the male fish.
All these patterns are dependent on the size of the fish and the opportunity available in the environment. This is because the growth pattern of the male fish is practically undefined, and the fertilization opportunity is directly proportional to the size of the fish. It was also found that most of the species of male fishes that have more than two reproductive patterns belong to teleost families of five species. (Taborsky, 1998)
Overall, the study is constructed and executed in a very meticulous manner. The wide literature used in the study indicates the flawless scientific approach and tenacity of the author. These applications make the study more acceptable and truthful. Furthermore, the study opens up the opportunity for more research options on the issue and makes way for more elaborate research on the topic in the future. Thus, this study can be enumerated as an excellent example of work and a recommendation for future studies. However, a bigger population of fish could have been used for a more accurate result. Hopefully, future works on the subject would compensate for this blemish.
References
Taborsky, M. (1998). Sperm competition in fish: ‘bourgeois’ males and parasitic spawning. TREE 13(6), 222-227.
Competition is the direct or indirect association among organisms, which can be either, be between the members of the same species or among those of different species. For example, it can be between plants and plants or animals and other animals or animals and plants, whereby the survival of one is threatened or lowered by the existence of another especially when there is a limited supply of some basic resources such as food, water, air and sun required by both. Therefore, the organisms compete for the little resources available for their fitness and thus their survival (Ammunét, Klemola, and Saikkonen,78).
The competition can be intraspecific or interspecific specific. In intraspecific is where the individuals of the same species compete for the same resources. For instance, some plant species grow taller than surrounding tree species in a thick forest to absorb more sunlight. So the tall trees receive more light than the shaded trees. While interspecific is where the members of different species compete for the same resources. The competition can be an Interference competition where individuals fight over limited resources but one species has a benefit over the other, resulting in a bigger loss by one rival. An example is where plants of one genus release poisonous chemicals that slow down the survival of other potential competitors. The competition can also be Exploitative where one type of plant reduces or uses a resource more efficiently thereby causing depletion for other species. An example is an aphid species that feed on host plant sap leaving less for competing species. Another type of competition is called apparent which occurs when two or more species in an environment affect shared ordinary enemies in the same habitat.
Plants compete for resources for either survival or better reproduction ability. The common resources competed for include habitat, water, sunlight, and nutrients. When these are sufficient, then the plants will compete to perform well by yielding the best products. In case the plants are close to each other, then the essential resources become scarce or limited which results in a competition confronting each other for a potential share. In some cases like the scrounging plants, they will fight for the nutrients owned by the host.
With the availability of sufficient nutrients such as water, nutrients, sunlight, and a proper territory for growth and survival, plants tend to compete against each other to demonstrate the highest production capacity than the other. For example, plants that produce a lot of seeds like blackjack plants have the best methods of spreading than plants that produce fewer seeds like mango. Also, plants with flowers that are attractive are pollinated faster by insects therefore better production as compared to the less attractive flowering plants. When the plants are in proximity they compete for nutrients, so they go on offense by trying to obtain as much as possible. In the process, the opponent plants use defensive methods such as the production of toxins, spreading of the roots, in order to get the required amount of nutrients and water for growth, existence, and reproduction.
Another example of offense and defense mechanism is exhibited competition for sunlight where some plants grow very broad leaves very fast to absorb more light at the expense of the nearby plants which grow at a slower rate. So, some of these plants can defend themselves by producing toxins that prevent other plants from getting close. The parasitic plant goes on the offense by trying to get the nutrients from the host as the hosts defend this by absorbing more nutrients for survival success. So if the host prevents the parasite from getting the nutrients it dies, and on the other hand, if the parasite takes a lot of nutrients then the host can obtain the host dies and so the parasite.
Different plants have different adaption mechanisms to various conditions while some have better survival tactics others have just moderate. In a change of a variety of conditions for example change in light regimes some plants will grow taller than the others as others will develop broader leaves as an offense to get more sunlight, and on change of nutrient concentration the shorter plants will develop and spread more roots as a defense thereby getting more nutrient at the expense of the taller plants which have long roots at this point they may slow the rate of growth, again on change of carbon dioxide the plants with broad leaves will absorb more than the plants with needle-like leaves. Therefore, if the change goes on like that then the competition will be very tough, therefore the offense and defense mechanism will continue for the fitting and survival of both species.
Climate change will favor some plants while others will not be favored depending on the type of change, for instance, only drought-resistant plants such as acacia can survive in absence of water as other plants starve and die. Again for some cases of excess water, only water plants can survive as others rot and die. For that matter, most plants have adaptation mechanisms that they apply when a situation arises.
Various species are not related to the richness and the relationship between is affected by competition for resources. According to the invasive paradox, it is possible for invasive species to have both negative and positive relationships with the other species. This paradox implied that the richness of certain species can play a role in the relationship between the invasive species and the exotic species. After using observations experiments and theoretical evidence, their relationship can be either negative or positive relationship in the context of native-exotic richness. However, none of these processes generated both. Fridley et al (2007) thus have concluded that the richness of native species will invite invasive species but the reduction of native species richness will accelerate the pace of invasion.
It has been found through a study by Lau (28) that the exotic plant Medicago polymorpha and the exotic herbivore Hypera brunneipennis changed the strength and direction of natural selection by causing changes in the competitive ability and anti-herbivore defenses of the native plant Lotus wrangelianus. When exotic herbivore Hypera had a majority presence, it caused increased resistance to herbivores in the native Lotus’ while the additional presence of Medicago ensured that this did not happen. Rather, selection on tolerance, which is another defense trait among plants increased in the presence of Hypera and Medicago. Thus, it can be said that invasive species have the potential to change the evolutionary paths of native plant populations (Lau, 29). According to a study by Capers et al (2007), it has been found that invasive species are not related to the richness of the native species. Capers et al arrived at this conclusion after studying the relationship between native and invasive species richness of submerged aquatic plants in and among 103 Connecticut lakes (Schweiger, Settele, Kudrna, Klotz, and Kühn 78). Schweiger, Settele, Kudrna, Klotz, and Kühn(8)have studied the invasion paradox according to which it is possible for invasive species to have both negative and positive relationships with the native species. This paradox implied that the richness of the native species can play a role in the relationship between the invasive species and the exotic species. After using observations experiments and theoretical evidence. Fridley, Stachohowiez, and Samuel Naeem (15) identified eight processes that showed an either a negative or positive relationship in the context of native-exotic richness. However, none of these processes generated both. Schweiger, Settele, Kudrna, Klotz, and Kühn (12) thus have concluded that the richness of native species will invite invasive species but the reduction of native species richness will accelerate the pace of invasion.
Works Cited
Ammunét, Tea, Tero, Klemola, and Kari Saikkonen. Impact of Host Plant Quality on Geometrid Moth Expansion on Environmental and Local Population Scales. New York: John Wiley, 2009. Print.
Fridley, John, James Stachohowiez and Samwel Naeem. “The Invasion Paradox: Reconciling Pattern and Process in Species Invasions”. Ecology, 2007
Lau, Jennifer. “Beyond the Ecological: Biological Invasions Alter Natural Selection on a Native Plant Species”. Ecology, 2008.
Schweiger, Oliver, Josef Settele, Otakar Kudrna, Stefan Klotz, and Ingolf Kühn. Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of tropically interacting species. Ecology, 2008.
Definition of political competition and political transparency
Political competition is defined as competition for political power where political parties or individuals compete to define and govern the direction of public policy. This kind of rivalry has always resulted in questionable public policy decisions made by the government. The government often allocates the society with resources of living, and more often, these allocations are unequally distributed.
Some parts of society get a greater part of the resources, thus having a higher advantage over the others. This results in political conflicts and ultimately leads to competition in politics. The main issue will be who has more power to control the government and its legal power. There are different people from different parts of the society who are affected by the unequal distribution of resources, thus the government’s decision cannot please everyone. This provides a basis for continuous political conflict and competition (Barrington, Bosia and Bruhn, 2009).
In politics, transparency means fighting corruption and ensuring that public officials are responsible for their actions. A government can hold its meetings in a way that they are open to the press and public. For instance, financial budgets should be reviewed by the public, and all the laws and decisions made should be as well open to discussion. This makes it less easy for public officials to abuse authority for their own selfish interests. Participative democracy is more likely to achieve the goal of transparency because the people are allowed to participate in it, and it is connected with the will of the people.
Overview of Iranian Guardian Council and IFE
Iran Guardian Council is part of a council in the Iranian constitution that has the right to provide changes in the constitution and “examine if the laws passed by the Majlis (parliament) comply with the Iranian Constitution and conform to Islam” (Iran Guardian Council, 2007). It has the power to prohibit any laws passed by the Iranian Parliament. It consists of twelve members who should be Muslim clerics and jurists. The Supreme leader chooses six members of the Council who are clerics.
The remaining six members are jurists who are nominated by the head of Iran Judiciary Power and voted in by the parliament (Iran Guardian Council, 2007). Once the twelve members are elected, they are expected to serve for a period of six years. However, after three consecutive years six, these members are replaced by new ones. The Guardian Council of the Constitution is responsible for prohibiting or approving legislation passed by the parliament. It could prohibit a law based on two things, whether the law goes against Islamic laws or it is not in accordance with the Iranian constitution (Iran Guardian Council, 2007).
The IFE was formed on October 11, 1990 (Morris 1995). This was done due to a number of constitutional reforms in 1989, and the passing of new legislation. It is comprised of the juristic division of the national government, national political parties, and the general citizens. The IFE has undergone significant reform processes since it was put in place which in turn has had an impact on its integration and acknowledgments (Domínguez and McCann, 1996).
The most recent reforms were implemented in 1996 and advocated for setting the IFE free from the executive branch. The most special feature of the IFE is that it allowed organizing federal elections. Its main office is located in the Federal District where it operates under a regionalized structure that allows it to exercise its authority throughout the country (Brandenburg 1964).
Role of Iranian Guardian Council and IFE in elections
The Iranian Guardian Council has the right to screen candidates before they are allowed to run for the presidency in the country. This has often been criticized and termed as undemocratic. This system lacks transparency because it does not involve citizens. The screening of presidential candidates is not open to public discussion. There were protests when president Mir Hossein Mousavi was elected as a president. There are no exit polls in Iran yet he knew that he had won even before the votes were counted. However, he lost the election to his rival President Ahmadinejad (Hossein-zadeh, July 2009).
The Guardian Council is responsible for overseeing all elections since 1979 and has been able to conduct ten undisputed elections since its inception. There exists competition in Iranian politics. Individuals competing for power and authority do so in order to be able to make decisions that influence the government. Mr. Mousavi did lose to Ahmadinejad in the elections and claimed that the election was “stolen” even though there was no evidence to substantiate these claims. It was not clear whether these were just means for Mr. Mousavi to hijack the elections, but the fact remains that he did not expect to lose.
The IFE, on the other hand, is responsible for ensuring that there is exact and timely registration of all Mexicans allowed to vote. This is considered to be an essential requirement, in order to guarantee the transparency of the electoral process. Citizens that qualify to vote are registered and given the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. Political conflict and competition existed especially when an analysis of the 2006 elections was done.
Felipe Calderón won the elections, but his political rival Andrés Manuel López Obrador contested the results citing that there had been irregularities. However, Calderon met all the constitutional requirements of being elected as a president and was immediately declared the one. The desire for power and authority drove Obrador to lead protests in an attempt to change the country’s political opinion. The IFE was accused of being corrupt and, therefore, tarnished its image of being transparent. There were allegations that the IFE was provided with a biometric database for voters by a French company.
References
Barrington, Lowell, Bosnia, Michael J. and Kathleen Bruhn. 2009. Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Brandenburg, Frank. 1964. The Making of Modern Mexico. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Domínguez, Jorge I. and James A. McCann. 1996. Democratizing Mexico: Public Opinion and Electoral Choices. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hossein-zadeh, Ismael. 2009. Reflecting on Iran’s Presidential Election. Web.
Iran Guardian Council. 2007. “Iran Guardian Council within Iran Political Structure”. Web.
Morris, Stephen D. 1995. Political Reformism in Mexico: An Overview of Contemporary Mexican Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
China’s Rise and Views of the Emerging International Order
The economic and political rise of China in the world, radical personnel renewal of party and state structures, and other measures to regulate the country’s forces affect the foreign policy of the PRC. At the same time, the principle of political and ideological continuity of the strategic course of generations is strictly followed. China’s foreign policy identity and behavior, as well as the entire structure of its external activity, is carried out and develops under the influence of the historical past.
Among the features characteristic of the self-realization of the global power, in addition to maneuvering within the big triangle Russia-USA-China, one can name several unique aspects that describe the development of China. These are the specificity of the doctrinal and conceptual views of the PRC on the world order, attempts to disseminate its vision of a multipolar world and a new international order, and unique historical experience.
One of the features of the current international situation in which the rise of the PRC is taking place is the inability to gain success without cooperation. The state interests of all major powers have reached high rates of intertwining and interdependence (Zhao, 2015). The current position of the PRC’s leaders is that the growth of the global role of China should proceed peacefully while taking into account the interests of other countries. The rise and movement towards economic growth should take place on the basis of cooperation and co-development, respect for other civilizations, and constructive dialogue with them.
In contrast to the ancient ethical principles of power retention, in particular, royal ethics, hegemony, and tyranny, today, the Chinese government relies on more democratic methods of controlling power (Zhao, 2015). Despite the continuity of culture and strong ties among generations, the country has adapted to the modern world order, which is largely due to the need to interact with other states to maintain economic stability. Thus, in modern conditions, the promotion of the idea of strengthening China aims not to oppose the country and its culture to other states.
Regarding the changes in approaches to foreign policy, the Chinese leadership constantly emphasizes that the PRC does not strive for hegemony. Although today, several superpowers demonstrate rivalry in trade, finance, and other areas, China adheres to an independent position that does not imply a movement towards dominance as the main goal of development (Mearsheimer, 2019). Moreover, the country is focused on preserving the national heritage, and the passive missionary zeal typical of communist states is uncharacteristic for China (Mearsheimer, 2019).
The state aims to maximize the opportunities of economic globalization and study and benefit from the achievements of human civilization, thereby discarding ideological biases and templates. This means that, despite its aggressive economic policy of domination, the state in question does not intend to strive for power leadership and achieve the status of the most influential state of the 21st century.
At the same time, against the background of general expectations that over the next decade, China will still manage to squeeze the United States as the largest economy in the world, growing concerns are noticeable. Both in the media and among political elites, there are ideas about the prospects for Chinese domination and a potential shift in the balance of power (Allan et al., 2018). Moreover, these fears are not necessarily related to the potential power of China.
To a greater extent, they are determined by the fact that the result of increased Chinese dominance may be the prevalence of the Beijing consensus (Allan et al., 2018). At its core, one can highlight two key ideas guiding opinions about the possible growth of the PRC in the international arena. On the one hand, there is an idea of prioritizing a government-defined collective good over individual rights. On the other hand, there is a notion that a socialist market economy with strong state intervention, as well as a one-party government system, is central to the system of government. These ideas shape the current ideas about a potential threat of Chinese dominance.
Either perspective, if destined to become a reality, will require adaptation to a lifestyle different from that promoted by the United States. The Western order presupposes a way of life in which individual rights prevail over the collective good and the market economy is guarded by liberal democratic rules. Thus, the growth of Chinese opportunities in the international arena, in case of a transition to more active mechanisms of the build-up of power, can transform economic, political, and trade trends promoted by other superpowers.
China’s unique ideas about the existing world order shape the country’s image and explain the individual aspects of its development. Despite the absence of clear geopolitical interests and the desire to dominate, the economic growth of this power can be described as aggressive, which, in turn, allows it to significantly influence the world order. The need to interact with other superpowers and maintain cooperation to ensure trade stability explains the loyalty of the PRC and the lack of obvious plans to achieve global leadership.
Great Power Competition
The return of great power rivalry is a phenomenon in global politics in the context of the transformation of the world order. The current rivalry is caused by the struggle for power and the contradictions among the national interests of various players. Nevertheless, this phenomenon is hazardous for international safety and stability. Due to the economic and military asymmetry among some states and competition in many areas simultaneously, this is becoming difficult to assess the risk of information or economic pressure escalating into a military conflict. The antagonism of superpowers is reflected in the course of regional conflicts.
The danger of the existing competition is that the growing conflict in relations among these countries leads to the fact that general hostility is transferred to all conflicts in which they participate. The deepening division of labor both in the world and within individual states causes property stratification and social polarization. Assessing the rivalry among such superpowers as Russia, the US, China, and India can highlight the key aspects of the international order, potential implications for the balance of power, and the factors influencing the status quo in the world arena.
The evaluation of relations between the United States and China is one of the most discussed topics in the context of the existing balance of power. Since the late 1980s, America has occupied a position of global hegemon unprecedented in the world system (Shifrinson, 2016). At the same time, China is rapidly strengthening its global position. By betting on active participation in globalization in the 1990s, China has reaped enormous benefits and accumulated economic power (Pardesi, 2015). Today, the country has transformed these benefits into political and military ones.
There are elements of both cooperation and rivalry in relations between the United States and China. The two countries have built a model of mutually beneficial and increasingly complex economic ties. Both states have influential business lobbies advocating for better relations, as well as deepening interpersonal ties at the level of elites and ordinary citizens. Nonetheless, the tensions between the two states are escalating, and the main reason is that growing China is increasingly becoming a competitor to the United States in many aspects of global leadership.
While the United States continues to strengthen its power, the economic and military-political potential of the PRC is growing faster, and the global balance of power is gradually shifting towards China (Brooks & Wohlforth, 2015). Not being an ally of the US, on the basis of containing China, India, as a state that has weight in the international arena, is trying to get closer to Washington (Pardesi, 2015). As a result, this bipolarity further exacerbates the relationship between the two superpowers.
Another rivalry at the level of superpowers in the modern world is the confrontation between the United States and Russia. After the end of the Cold War, the countries temporarily put the confrontation on hold despite differing views of the political order, in particular, Western capitalism and Russian authoritarianism (Shifrinson, 2016). However, after the events of 2014 and the annexation of Crimea to Russia with the participation of the Russian Armed Forces, the conflict entered an open phase. Moscow regained its status as one of the main rivals of the US, which was lost after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR (Brooks & Wohlforth, 2015).
Today, the two countries’ special services are actively working against each other. The US has passed a sanctions law that is unlikely to be lifted in the foreseeable future. At the military level, the two countries are on the verge of a military clash in Syria due to the difference in geopolitical interests and the desire to impose a particular political ideology. Under these conditions, the space for constructive dialogue between the United States and Russia is steadily shrinking.
The destructive potential of the growing rivalry between China and India is clear. The interaction of these superpowers determines not only the state of international relations in the region under consideration but also the fate of the multipolar world order, including international affairs at the global level. The states have never been close, but in recent years, they have increasingly entered into sharp diplomatic duels (Pardesi, 2015). One of the causes of the conflict is territorial divisions caused by differences in their opinions regarding the official boundaries of individual territories (Pardesi, 2015). This means that the rivalry in question can be viewed in the context of realism.
Any action by China aimed to strengthen its presence in Eurasia is perceived by India as a geopolitical challenge and is a cause of discontent. As a result, the existing fragile peace between these countries is largely based on the preserved diplomatic relations, and there are risks of unleashing an active conflict.
The evaluation of the rivalry of superpowers in the international arena, including such countries as China, Russia, the United States, and India, highlights the characteristic controversies and causes of competition. Currently, the most acute contradictions arise between the United States and Russia, the United States and China, as well as China and India. Diplomatic norms and regulations are essential incentives to maintain peace between the superpowers to prevent global armed confrontation and keep a relatively equal balance of power.
References
Allan, B. B., Vucetic, S., & Hopf, T. (2018). The distribution of identity and the future of international order: China’s hegemonic prospects. International Organization, 72(4), 839-869. Web.
Zhao, S. (2015). Rethinking the Chinese world order: The imperial cycle and the rise of China. Journal of Contemporary China, 24(96), 961-982. Web.
Brooks, S. G., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2015). The rise and fall of the great powers in the twenty-first century: China’s rise and the fate of America’s global position. International Security, 40(3), 7-53. Web.
Pardesi, M. S. (2015). Is India a great power? Understanding great power status in contemporary international relations. Asian Security, 11(1), 1-30. Web.
Mankind or all the creatures of all ages and civilizations can not live without interacting with each other. I mean each one in this life has a particular role to play. Male or female, everyone focuses on the matters or affairs that one was created for. Since Adam and Eve were created they started the role of life, thus Adam could not make anything and all things alone, and so could not Eve.
But what is the cooperation itself? It is the practice of individuals or larger societal entities working in common with mutually agreed-upon goals and possibly methods, instead of working separately in competition, and in which the success of one is dependent and contingent upon the success of another.
However, co-operation may be coerced (forced) or voluntary (freely chosen), and consequently individuals and groups might co-operate even although they have almost nothing in common qua interests or goals. Examples of that can be found in market trade, military wars, families, workplaces, schools, and prisons, and more generally any institution or organization of which individuals are part (out of their own choice, by law, or forced).
Cooperation is the mastermind action that helps to judge success from all angles. The argument is the following: You can not make clapping by one hand. As a haiku goes:
Heat without cold.
Happiness without disappointment.
One hand clap.
Here in this subject, the person who can do lots of things in the society is regarded (I mean the society which includes several elements working together.) Hand in hand the world will be ours. Here in our country since Dec.2, 1971, the rulers of the seven Emirates decided to unite this country after the conclusion of the declaration of the Federation among the seven emirates. All the work rose together in all fields starting with the works of improving and uniting the infrastructure and cities building projects and even now the rulers of the emirates still have the attention to cooperate in all the spheres. It means that the person can not live life without helping each other. As we have in Islam several verses of the Holy Quran encourage Moslems to do all the effort and to combine forces for the good things and charity acts, but not cooperate for the war fairs.
Projects oblige people to work together, so teamwork has become an essential concept in organizations. Effective teams are a mediator goal towards getting good, sustainable consequences. The industry has seen increasing efforts through thorough training and cross-training to help people to work together more effectively and to accomplish shared goals, whether colleagues are present or absent.
We need to listen to other people’s ideas. When people are allowed to freely express their ideas, these initial ideas will produce other ideas.
We need to ask questions, interact, and discuss the objectives of the team.
We need to treat others with respect and to support their ideas.
We need to help our coworkers, which is the general theme of teamwork.
We need to share with the team to create an environment of teamwork
All members of the team are encouraged to participate in the team.
For a team to work effectively it is essential to team members acquire communication skills and use effective communication channels between one another e.g. using email, viral communication, group meetings, and so on. This will enable team members of the group to work together and achieve the team’s purpose and goals.
Meanwhile, we can see lots of people all over the world doing their best to produce Mass destruction weapons and materials, as the nuclear arms race between the two blocks in the recent decades, for example. This could not be regarded as the essence of cooperation, but it is against the cooperation, which should be for the useful and significant things not for the destructions and terrorism.
It is rather difficult to achieve the aims acting alone. Indeed, the person plans, one can put all the prerequisites for any project. Moreover to the dreams of such projects can be realized later on, but one can not start or run that project alone. Because human beings or mankind are created to depend on each other. The smallest model of the society is the family, independently either it includes 4 members or more than 40. No one can live alone, but everybody depends on one’s relatives, neighbors, and other people from the surrounding.
Regarding the events, both huge and very significant or small but simply pleasant, it is undoubtedly possible to conclude, that we observe the result of the teamwork, hand in hand, to achieve the aims. In addition to the relations between the states or the countries, it is necessary to say, that there are Superpowers in the world, but one can not live alone. It is the Life Philosophy.
To make the dreams come true the person should follow the correct and the most important steps in the way for success, or in another sense to take by reasons of attainments.
Looking at all responsibilities or works we can see the strides that were pursued to reach the achievements. One of the greatest examples, which is also particularly relevant for the Arab Emirates, is the Oil. Before the discovery, there were several countries all over the world looking for fuel – the most important element of the world economy. The specialists realized and discovered that there is oil under the land and every piece of equipment necessary for further discovery and production was provided. The planning for the future works, the man resources, the rigs, and all the team works and staff were made available to start in that work.
In the beginning, the explorers or the teamwork had an opportunity to find the oil effortlessly; they could find it at less than 10 000 feet depth. There could be water or deadly gas. Not having lost the intention, they tried more and more in several other locations. It is usually called the persistence of success. Cooperating and understanding each other are the main factors of successful teamwork, which leads to success.
Some may argue that lots of sportsmen achieve success acting alone, just by training hard every day. But are the sportsmen alone even in the individual kinds of sport such as swimming, running, boxing, F1, etc. Of course, they are not, as before these sportsmen gain success, the coach teaches a sportsman how to move correctly, how to breathe, how to act in a different situation. Swimmer or sprinter competes with his/ her friends to analyze all the possible mistakes and undermine the possibility of the fault. Before the competitions, the sportsman is morally supported by all his/ her friends, relatives, and training staff. If regarding Formula one racing, it may only seem that the pilots are acting alone, in spite they are united in teams. Every pilot is observed by a separate team of the mechanics and the trainers, not taking into account the IT specialists, who are responsible for the correct work of the IT. Humans are the creatures that never make up the convictions, developmental status, and surroundings of the entire globe. To act as if there is no cooperation within states is would be not only unreasonable but also hazardous. Some scholars draw attention to this issue, and while the views may be a bit extreme in the declaration that the world acts as a single incorporated unit, some people are precise in presuming that we join forces with other states, make stronger international organizations, and maintain the humanitarian and educational activities of worldwide civil society. International relations are set, to a large degree, by a range of norms. While some Countries may, at times, oppose the issues of what actions should be regarded as normal, the majority of states realize the mutual profits that can be achieved through collaboration on widely accepted rules. Some illustrations of norms involve the peaceful arrangement of disputes and admiration of national borders.
International cooperation itself is the most essential kind of human cooperation, as it is claimed to maintain order and obedience to world law. International cooperation creates the organizations which are claimed to enhance the world economy, struggle with poverty, help the people who suffered from the disasters.
World history shows that everyone strived to unite the efforts with the others, especially with the neighbors. Thus Germany was united in the Federation after the feudal division and after the division during the cold war resistance. Korea realizes that the united country would be a more powerful actor on the world stage. The states aim to join the international organizations in order not to be alone or isolated from the world affairs
So, a recommendation that I will be able to give after all the conclusions to all my colleagues and friends is not to be alone and keep trying uniting in groups. It is very easy to plan, drew, prepare, and run the mentioned projects alone, but it is difficult to succeed alone in life.
While the scope of EC competition law mainly under Article 82 aims at controlling monopolies and abuse of dominant position, it has been termed as going too far as to restrict the flow of commerce and the right to free enterprise1. The article stipulates that “any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States”2. Based on this provision alone, three conditions arise for a firm to be said to infringe Article 82. These are; first the conduct being considered must be that of a dominant undertaking (s). Secondly, it must fall within the definition of ‘abuse’ and lastly, it must bring about a negative effect on trade.
Abuse of dominance seems to be the bane of Competition law and European courts had been very strict on dominant firms to such a level that their right to contract and own property was severely curtailed. The reason for this has been the wide discretion left to the courts to infer the meaning of ‘abuse’. The EC law itself leaves it open while the Community courts have given it a wider scope as was seen in the case of Hoffmann La Roche & Co AG v Commission3 where it was stated to be “an objective concept relating to the behaviour of an undertaking”.
Community courts having being left with sweeping powers to determine what constitutes abuse have formulated the rule that “a course of conduct adopted by a dominant undertaking to exclude a competitor from the market by means other than legitimate competition on the merits may constitute an infringement of Article 82 EC4.” When refusal to deal was cited by the ECJ as a component of abuse, the Court opened a floodgate of victimization for dominant firms based on the notion that it was sowing a seed for healthy competition to thrive within the EU market.
In this research paper, I shall argue the case against this wide discretion that threatens to take away the rights to contract, the freedom to choose one’s partners in business and the free flow of commerce. The case of Oscar Bronner v Mediaprint5 shall be very crucial since the statement by the honourable judges that “It is apparent that the right to choose one’s trading partners and freely to dispose of one’s property are generally recognised principles… Incursions on those rights require careful justification” forms the basis of my arguments for freer trade. Additionally, the right to dispose of property should be respected rather than controlled. However, we shall see how the Commission is now limiting the intellectual property rights of firms against the principle of freedom of ownership of property.
Commercial Solvents Judgement
In Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. and Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission, made a ruling that “when an undertaking, which has a dominant position in the market for raw materials, refuses to supply its customer, it abuses dominant position by eliminating all competition on the part of this customer.6 The ruling increased the scope of the abuse of dominant position requirement in Article 82. In its obiter, the court added that a refusal to supply entails; “making supplies conditional on control over further processing or marketing and supplying on discriminatory and unfair conditions”, and also the making of a “constructive refusal”.
The ruling sought to maintain the notion in the EC competition law that main aim of the law in trade is to protect the consumer above all else. This is well articulated in the further statement by the court to the effect that the term ‘abuse’ did not only aim at “practices which may cause damage to consumers directly”, but also to those “which are detrimental to them through their impact on an effective competition structure.”
The scope of the last requirement is so wide that firms accused of abuse seem like they cannot escape it. In a subsequent case United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v Commission7where it was held that “a dominant undertaking may infringe Article 82 by refusing to supply [even] in response to a perceived threat to its commercial interests”. The rule was thus established that “an undertaking in a dominant position… cannot stop supplying a long standing customer who abides by regular commercial practice, if the orders placed by that customer are in no way out of the ordinary”8.
The Court in making the above rule stated that a counter attack was an acceptable practice but it must be proportional to the threat or attack while considering both undertaking’s economic strength in the confrontation9. Therefore, the rule in Commercial Solvents can be restated to mean that a refusal to supply can only be termed as being abusive where it reduces or prevents competition from “anyone who may wish to use the product or service, unless objectively justified by some proportionate benefit to the competition structure”. The general rule thus remains that a dominant firm shall bear the evidential burden where it refuses to supply to existing customers.
Looking at the above ruling, it becomes quite apparent that the Court of Justice does not fully appreciate the need to balance free enterprise with competition law. As the law stands, very few justifications are allowed for a firm to determine who to sell to or not yet, this is the basis of the freedom to enter into contract. One such justification was given in the BP case10 where the Commission’s ruling that a dominant firm “could legitimately discriminate between regular and occasional customers but not if this put the latter in danger of going out of business” was overturned by the appellate court which unequivocally stated that BP was well within its rights to treat traditional customers more favourably than occasional ones.
However, while the decision in BP seemed to give firms a sigh of relief, the decision in the subsequent case involving United Brands was adjudged as going “beyond legitimate relations”11. In the case, the company had attempted to protect its commercial interests through discriminating its customers. It is also notable that the ECJ also rejected the rationale by Commercial Solvents that “it wished to enter the market for the derivative products” as a reasonable justification for its discriminating acts. The approach by the courts to reject these justifications has been roundly criticized for preventing business efficacy12.
Essential Facilities Doctrine
The decision in Commercial Solvents paved the way for the courts to ‘pry open’ monopolies engaging in activities that could be said to deny other undertakings access to key infrastructure or vital services. The essential facilities doctrine has been restated as being a fundamental part of restricting or preventing abuse of dominance by monopolies. It states that “a company which has a dominant position in the provision of facilities which are essential for the supply of goods and services on another market abuses its dominant position if, without objective justification, it refuses access to these facilities”. The doctrine has been used since the 1980s by the EC courts seeking to liberalize the European market13.
The courts have gone further as to specify the essential facilities that fall within the scope of the doctrine. One of these is the access to airport and port facilities as evident in the Frankfurt case14. The court held that “an undertaking holding a dominant position on the market for the provision of aircraft facilities for the landing and take-off of aircraft abuses its dominant position by denying potential competitors in the ramp-handling service access to the ramp.”
Another essential facility that the courts have isolated is the railway service. In the case of European Night Services (ENS) where the Commission argued that through a conditional clearance requiring companies such as ENS “to provide locomotives, train crews and train paths” there was a requirement to provide such services on a non-discriminatory basis to avoid hindering “any other undertaking wishing to compete in the running of a similar service”15.
This argument was rejected by the Court due to the fact that the Commission did not prove that these facilities were “necessary or essential” and that “the mere fact of [ENS] benefiting from such service does not prevent or hinder downstream competition on the relevant market”. This set the rule and in the next related case, GVG, the Commission successfully proved that by GVG refusing to grant a rival access to its railway and traction services, the firm had abused its dominant position “with foreclosure effects in the downstream market.16”
In the telecommunication sector, the Commission has successfully relied on the essential facilities doctrine to promote liberalization. The major case in this context is that of BT where the court agreed with the commission that the dominant undertaking had abused its position by preventing certain private agencies from accessing telex messaging services17. The rule in BT was successfully relied on in the Telemarketing case where a major state broadcaster had denied a telemarketer airtime which was very crucial for it to thrive18. In both BT and Telemarketing cases, the court found that the acts of the dominant undertaking led to the “foreclosure of the downstream market”.
All in all, the courts have applied the essential facilities doctrine to ensure that certain key development services and infrastructural needs are not hindered by the so-called “natural monopolies” in the European market19. The Commission has successfully invoked the doctrine in other sectors such as the oil and gas industry that fall under that category. However, it has found it difficult to invoke the doctrine in other types of monopolies.
The Oscar Bronner Case
This case has often been cited as the stumbling block of the essential facilities principle20. In the case, a newspaper firm had demanded access to its rival’s ‘home delivery service’ by arguing that it was an essential facility based on ruling in the Sabena21 case. The question was whether such refusal amounted to an abuse of dominant position and the matter was referred to the ECJ. Though the matter was to be settled by the referring Austrian court, the ECJ made several guidelines that sought to limit the scope of the essential facilities doctrine.
In his submissions before the ECJ, Advocate General Jacobs made certain remarks that have come to be recognized as the limitations to the application of Article 82 EC. First, he stated that “the right to choose one’s trading partners and freely to dispose of one’s property was acknowledged as a generally recognised principle.22” He added that;
“To avoid overextension of Article 82 E.C., interference with a dominant undertaking’s freedom to contract requires a careful balancing of conflicting considerations… an application of essential facilities doctrine… can be justified only in cases in which the dominant undertaking has a genuine stranglehold on the related market”, which might be the case… where duplication of the facility is impossible or extremely difficult owing to physical, geographical or legal constrains or is highly undesirable for reasons of public policy. Therefore, a refusal to grant access should not amount to an abuse of a dominant position, unless it becomes extremely difficult for any other undertaking to compete on the relevant downstream market.”
Jacob’s view was that unchecked and overstretched application of the essential facilities doctrine would “lead the Community and national authorities into detailed regulation of the Community markets, entailing the fixing of prices and conditions for supply in large sectors of economy”. Interestingly, the ECJ agreed with him and stated that the refusal to allow a rival newspaper firm access to a nationwide distribution service could not fall under the doctrine.
The new Essential Facilities doctrine
The ruling in Oscar Bronner led to a restatement of the essential facilities doctrine. Based on the case, there are only three requirements for the courts to find abuse of dominant position under the doctrine. The first is that the refusal to deal must have the direct consequence of eliminating competitors and hence foreclosing the downstream market. Secondly, the service denied forms an indispensable part of the rival’s/competitors’ business with no option for actual or potential substitutes. Finally, the previously recognized requirement of lack of objective justification as stated in Commercial Solvents is the third factor in the new essential facilities doctrine.
Refusal to license
Competition law and intellectual property (IP) rights seem to have a strained relationship especially where the firm holding the IP rights is the dominant undertaking. The two act at crossroads since competition law seeks to encourage innovation by preventing foreclosure of markets while IP law seeks to promote innovation by allowing the holder to “reap monopoly profits”. While competition law is more concerned with behaviour of specific entities, IP law is general and structural since it rewards all holders equally. Based on these differences, the two laws may sometimes collide.
The interference of IP rights through competition law began with the ECJ’s decision to quash the ruling in the RTE case which had held that; “if a conduct of a dominant undertaking consists of the exercise of a right classified by national law as ‘copyright’, such conduct can never be reviewed in relation to Article 82 EC.23” The Volvo case which came after the RTE one was the first victim of interference of IP rights. The ECJ held that while it recognized the exclusive nature of IP, abusive conduct attached to the enjoyment of IP could still amount to abuse of dominance24.
In the case, the abusive conduct involved; refusal to supply vital spare parts to dealers and repairers, refusal to produce spare parts for vehicles in circulation and finally, unfair price fixing of spare parts.
While the Volvo case had lightly touched on the issue of refusal to license, it was the Magill case that laid the issue bare. The court while making its ruling stated that, “a refusal to licence new entrants constitutes an abuse of a dominant position, if following conditions of an ‘exceptional circumstances test’ are met, namely
the IPR holder prevents the appearance of a new product which has potential consumer demand,
the IPR holder effectively reserves to itself a secondary market by excluding all competition on that market and
the refusal is not objectively justifiable25.
The exceptional circumstances test shows the intention of the courts to disregard the sanctity of IP rights and to call in question the otherwise unfettered freedom to deal with an IP right.
In the Microsoft case, the exceptional circumstances test seemed to be made stronger when the Commission decided that “a refusal to supply interoperability information to the existing competitors in the downstream market constitutes an abuse of a dominant position26.” The argument made was that Microsoft’s failure to supply the information though not eliminating competitors, had a future consequence of bringing about a monopoly judging from the increase in Microsoft’s domination of the sector. The ruling seemed to lay bare the level of the courts’ intentions to limit the stranglehold that monopolies have acquired through possession of IP. The refusal to grant license for a copyrighted product is just one of the abusive practices that courts are willing to prevent within the scope of Article 82 EC.
Conclusion
From the above analysis, it is quite evident that European courts have opted to make incursions into previously ‘immutable’ rights. The statement by Advocate Jacobs that the courts are now purporting to control trade and fix prices is true in the sense that by taking away the right to contract i.e. by preventing one from discriminating business partners or the right to own property i.e. by providing for compulsory licensing of IP rights by their holders, the courts have ‘crossed the line’27. The behaviour of the courts seems to encourage ‘free riders’ in the economic system who benefit from their ‘underdog’ status under the pretext of protection from the dominant undertaking. One is left to imagine the kind of economic situation that would prevail had the Oscar Bronner case been held otherwise.
Bibliography
AB Volvo v Erik Beng [1988] E.C.R. 6211 Anderman, S, “Does the Microsoft Case Offer a New Paradigm for the ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Test and Compulsory Copyright Licenses under EC Competition Law?” C.L.R. Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 435-67.
Article 82 EC [2002] O.J. C 325/35. British Telecommunication 1 C.M.L.R. 457.
Centre Belge D’études de Marché – Télémarketing (CBEM) v SA Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion (CLT) and Information Publicité Benelux (IPB) [1985] E.C.R. 3261.
European Night Services v Commission [1998] E.C.R. II-3141, 215 GVG/FS O.J. L11/17.
Hoffmann La Roche & Co AG v Commission [1979] E.C.R. 461 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. and Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission E.C.R. 223.
London European – Sabena [1988] O.J. L 317/47.
Magill TV Guide v Commission [1989] O.J. L78/43
Microsoft v Commission [2004] COMP/C-3/37.792
Nemirovski, D, ‘Mandatory Dealing in the European Union Law: The Way of Thorns’ International University Audentes Student Law Journal, no. 1, 2005, pp. 104-19.
Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v Mediaprint [1998] E.C.R. I-7791.
Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission [1995] E.C.R. I-743.
United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v Commission [1978] E.C.R. 207.
Footnotes
D Nemirovski, ‘ Mandatory Dealing In The European Union Law: The Way Of Thorns’ International University Audentes Student Law Journal , no. 1, 2005, pp. 104-19.
Article 82 EC [2002] O.J. C 325/35.
Hoffmann La Roche & Co AG v Commission [1979] E.C.R. 461.
ibid.
Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v. Mediaprint [1998] ECR I-7791.
Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. and Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission [1974] E.C.R. 223.
United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v Commission [1978] E.C.R. 207.
Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. and Commercial Solvents Corporation v Commission [1974] E.C.R. 223.
Nemirovski, p. 105.
Benzine en Petroleum Handelsmaatschippij BV v Commission [1978] E.C.R. 1513.
United Brands Company and United Brands Continental BV v Commission [1978] E.C.R. 207.
Nemirovski, p.105.
Ibid, p.106.
FAG-Flughafen Frankfurt/Main AG [1998] O.J. L72, 70.
European Night Services v Commission [1998] E.C.R. II-3141, 215.
GVG/FS [2003] O.J. L11/17.
British Telecommunication [1983] 1 C.M.L.R. 457.
Centre Belge D’études de Marché – Télémarketing (CBEM) v SA Compagnie Luxembourgeoise de Télédiffusion (CLT) and Information Publicité Benelux (IPB) [1985] E.C.R. 3261.
Nemirovski,p.108.
Ibid, 109.
London European – Sabena [1988] O.J. L 317/47.
Oscar Bronner case.
Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) and Independent Television Publications Ltd (ITP) v Commission [1995] E.C.R. I-743.
AB Volvo v Erik Beng [1988] E.C.R. 6211.
Magill TV Guide v Commission [1989] O.J. L78/43.
Microsoft v Commission [2004] COMP/C-3/37.792 , 781.
S. Anderman. “Does the Microsoft Case Offer a New Paradigm for the ‘Exceptional Circumstances’ Test and Compulsory Copyright Licenses under EC Competition Law?” C.L.R. Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2004, pp. 435-67.