Page 84 - Azerbaijan State University of Economics

STUDYING OF SPECIAL PRACTICAL ISSUES OF ABUSE OF DOMINANCE

other antitrust cases) is simply how do the practices under examination affect

choices available to users (Pittman 1994)? For example, if a practice such as
territorial market restraints has resulted in better service to consumers by

preventing free riding, then the conduct would normally be considered

procompetitive. However, if a practice makes it more difficult for alternative
suppliers to enter the market without offsetting advantages for consumers, it

is clearly anticompetitive. Unlike rivals, customers do not have the incentive
to complain about practices that lower the dominant firm's costs, but

customers maybe reluctant to state either informally or formally that the
dominant firm is abusing its position.

Another useful analytical tool is to consider the effects of practices

with reference to the dynamics of an industry. If a practice is efficiency
enhancing, then small as well as large firms will have an incentive to adopt

it. In this regard it is relevant to ask: did the firm engage in the practice when

it was smaller? Or, if the firm never was small, do its smaller rivals engage
in the practice? Or, if such firms do not exist, do firms of all sizes in the

same industry in other countries (or similar industries in the same country)
engage in the practice? Have the firms that have recently grown used the

alleged abusive practice? If so, then the alleged practice may be important to
those changes, and it may be counterproductive for competition authorities to

intervene.

Determining appropriate remedies. Thinking about whether there is an
appropriate remedy is a useful way to determine whether a case merits attention

before significant public resources are committed to it. If there is no practical
remedy for an apparent abuse (that is, a remedy that clearly improves the situation

and does not entail excessive monitoring costs), then there may be no point in
pursuing the case.

83