Is the Philippines Truly Free Essay

In terms of fashion, culture and economy, however, we cannot say the same. The Filipinos still suffer from colonial mentality. Music, fashion, customs and tradition and products of foreign countries, especially the so-called stateside, are still being patronized by most Filipinos, especially the youth who unabashedly mimic foreign singers, artists, including their lifestyles not minding to spend lots of money just to be â€Å"in† with these foreign idols. Thousands of Pinoys are also dying to migrate to other countries. As a member of the Filipino youth of today I believe that I can somehow make the Philippines truly free by reversing the above negative attitudes. First, I will start from myself. I will think, talk and act like a true Filipino. I will live by the Filipino values like being polite and courteous, using â€Å"po†, â€Å"opo†, respect my parents, the elders and be fair to all. I will patronize Filipino made products so we can save the dollars of our country. I will visit and encourage visit to the local tourist spots. I shall lead by example by taking care of the environment. I will recycle plastics and use biodegradable trash as organic fertilizer. By doing so, we can boost our country’s economy and awaken the sense of nationalism in each and every Filipino. Not only will our country be appreciated by our fellow Filipinos, but also by foreigners locally and internationally. Lastly, I will keep myself informed of the current social and national issues so I can express my views thereon. I will encourage the youth to do the same so we can preserve the democracy in our country alive and help it move forward.

Christmas card making Essay

What I would like to achieve by making Christmas cards with a group of 3-4 children at a time, is to see how and what they think Christmas is all about, their creative side and if the can write their own names at the bottom of their card. The learning intentions for each child are to either write their own name without help or copy it from another piece of paper. Again in this activity the children will have to learn to share the equipment. Fridrich Frebel believed and emphasised that creative play was important part of a Childs worlds and growing up, he also thought physical play, song and rhymes was a symbolism, and best developed though play. Aim: To get all the children who do a card to try to write their name inside. What the children will learn: The children today will learn how to write their name correctly, I don’t think they will remember all of how to do it but next time they need to write it they will find it easier. What I will learn: I should learn to help and supervise children properly and to help understand what they should and shouldn’t being doing at this age and weather or not they understand the way I am asking them to do an activity for me. What happened? I choose three random children who were wondering around not doing any other activity. I choose two girls and a boy, to come sit at a table, first of all their put on aprons the table already had glue and card on it with scissors and glitter pens the children did not understand straight away what I wanted them to do I sat down and tried to explain luckily I had bring in one that I had did at home with my brother who is their age. The two girls KL and CW knew what I wanted them to try and do I even said can you do your name inside when you have finished. This time I didn’t have an early year’s practitioner with me but one of them came over to see if I was okay. The Stephanie Jewell 3rd January 2005 boy I had asked to do a card didn’t want to he found some thing else he anted to do, so one of the early years practitioner gave me another boy DK as he needs help with his name. I gave them red card and folded it KL wanted hers folded twice so I did as it was her Christmas card. The children took their time at making the outside of the card about 20 minutes later I said â€Å"is anyone nearly finished? † they all stopped their work and said â€Å"Yes† but they was not, so I told them to carry on then a couple minutes later DK finished the front so I wrote the inside for him and asked if he can do his name e but he was very aliment that he could not do it so I wrote it on a bit of paper to copy and he tried really hard but we only got half of it done as he got a little upset because he didn’t want to do it. The two girls finished as well as are older they started to write letters inside but they didn’t make any words but I thought that was really good bas they were trying. They both wrote their names and kisses, the children letters were back to front or upside but you can tell what their name was. Evaluation: The activity of making cards with the children went better then I excepted as the children didn’t argue with each other and wanted to speak to me one after another instead of shouting and screaming. I thought I explained what to do well as the two girls that I choose to do this got on with the work straight away and didn’t really need my help until the end with the writing of their names. The child who didn’t want to do card making made me feel as if I was doing some thing wrong but he didn’t take in ant activities that day. The children left their cards to dry and the next day we put them into envelopes and they took them home. I would like to carry it out again if possible as I enjoyed myself as I was helping and watching them does it. If you were to carry out this activity then I would say have no more then two children at a time that way you can give them almost your full attention and this way the children tend not to want to talk over each other as there are only two of them sitting on a table. The children did learn how to do their names correctly even though DK got upset as he didn’t want to write his even though I kept encouraging him to Stephanie Jewell 3rd January 2005 try. I think I should have spoke more about Christmas and how a time for giving and why we give out cards to people. I put down a mat on the table as the children was working with glue, and glitter what make a lot of mess in the hands of 3, 4 year olds. The children put on aprons to protect their clothing which was a good idea, they did make a lot of mess with the glitter pens and didn’t know when to stop putting on to the card I had to keep telling them it was enough but they some times didn’t listen. The cutting of paper made mess around the table. But all of the mess made was easily cleared up within minutes and all the children had to do is wash their hands. I didn’t realise the children would take as long as they did to make the cards and even writing their name took longer then expected, I gave myself half and hour when I should have allowed an hour to do this kind of activity. When the children sit down they took a little while to get started. The planning I did for both the activities were helpful I did follow both the plans I think the planning is good to have but on the day it all depends on the children weather or not they want to do it or if they are going to muck about for you, the best part about the planning is to see if you can complete the learning intentions you set for the children and knowing what equipment ids needed before hand in case its any thing that they wouldn’t have usually.

Benefits Of Developing Conservation Strategies Environmental Sciences Essay

Benefits Of Developing Conservation Strategies Environmental Sciences Essay Increases in the human population and degradation of habitats have caused many species that were formerly common to decline to near extinction. As a result, we have become increasingly involved in attempting to preserve populations of rare or endangered species (Deborah T., 1987). Over the last two decades almost all arguments about nature conservation have involved the issue of biological diversity and ways to preserve it. These discussions culminated in the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and its implementation (Glowka L, 1994). The conservation of biodiversity is a vast undertaking, requiring the mobilization of existing data, huge amounts of new information, and the monitoring and management of wildlife on an unprecedented scale (Malcolm L. Hunter, 2007). The biologists are fairly skilled at looking at the big picture, at seeing forests not just trees. They understand that we cannot maintain genetic diversity without maintaining species diversity and that we cannot maint ain species without maintaining without ecosystem diversity (Malcolm L. Hunter, 2007). In addition, the size of a habitat and the number of species it can support are systematically related. Physically larger species and those living at lower latitudes or in forests or oceans are more sensitive to reduction in habitat area (Drakare S, 2006).Therefore, endangered species conservation requires many lines of inquiry to provide the evidence required for a holistic approach to conservation planning (Sutaria D 2009). Conservation biology is reforming around strategic plans that include principles, guidelines, and tools for the purpose of protecting biodiversity (M. E. Soule, 1986). Conservation biology is crisis-oriented and multi-disciplinary, including ecology, social organization, education, and other disciplines outside of biology (F. van Dyke, 2008). Preserving biodiversity is a global priority in strategic conservation plans that are designed to engage public policy and concerns aff ecting local, regional and global scales of communities, ecosystems, and cultures (Gascon C., 2007). Action plans identify ways of sustaining human well-being, employing natural capital, market capital, and ecosystem services (G. W. Luck, 2003). A strategy, simply defined, is a set of actions that a conservation project implements to reduce threats, capitalize on important opportunities. Examples of strategies include building the capacity of local law enforcement, educating schoolchildren about wildlife, and developing alternative livelihood options such as ecotourism. One could say that the conservation of endangered species to be effective, both biological and social elements of the conservation process must be considered as a basic for minimizing threats (Beasley L. 2007). This essay will discusses about evaluating the conservation costs and benefits of developing conservation strategies focusing on species, then habitats and finally on the resources. Biological species – tigers, butterflies, trees, frogs, whales, and so on are integral to nature; they are the players on the stage; species and their interrelationships, including the relationship to people. Many of the closest relationships human beings have established with nature are based on species (IUCN, 2008). There are several strategies that are beneficial for species and human. One of several strategies is the Opportunities for Debt Investment in Environmental Conservation. By combining microfinance lending approaches with performance-based payments for conservation of environmental assets, long-term incentives for environmental conservation and sustainable economic development can be coupled. For example, migratory species like loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles suffer from a suite of human impacts, including harvest of eggs and adults on nesting beaches across many Pacific island nations and mortality from industrial fishing on the high seas. These species are at a critical point, it h as been estimated that loggerhead turtles may be extinct in 50 years. Some governments have taken steps to minimize impacts on marine turtles by limiting coastal development and regulating fisheries, at some cost to the public and private sectors. Investment in endangered species recovery in low-income countries can deliver local benefits, such as increased opportunities for sustainable harvest, nature-based tourism or other non-turtle related economic activities, as well as monetary and non-monetary dividends back to governments’ .There are a number of potential advantages with using debt investment as a tool for environmental conservation. The program is aimed directly at improving livelihoods and lending can be targeted at reducing unsustainable resource use, an environmental mortgage program could directly address the alleviation of poverty. In some instances local people are as motivated, or even more motivated than conservationists to protect the animals in their homela nd, especially when they represent a valuable resource for food or commerce. But for some communities, it comes down to protecting animals that are as much a part of a hostile environment as drought or fire (C. Josh Donlan). As with African villagers expected to protect an elephant herd that continually destroys their crops and leaves them hungry without a means of generating income. For example, when villagers living in or near a game reserve are told by authorities that they can’t hunt an animal because it is endangered even as they are struggling with hunger. Although, the African elephants are protected by CITES (Kimbra C, 2010).

Peer Review Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Peer Review - Essay Example Thus three are three broader hypotheses also under which authors attempt to provide a comprehensive view of how the individuals perceive adult development based on their sociological tradition dealing, desirability of the expected change and how it contributes towards development and finally the knowledge that adults hold of the overall development process. The sampling methods adapted were selective sampling method as according to author, the bias towards sampling was necessary. This was necessarily done in order to sample only those respondents who possess the rich vocabulary to describe their beliefs in more eloquent manner. This method therefore allowed researcher to tap the young and educated respondents however, the overall differences in ratings on vocabulary are reported to be minimal within the respondents belonging to different age groups. The overall procedures adapted to gather the data involved mix of the techniques adapted by the researcher. This included oral as well as other means of collecting data under the supervised guidance of the author. Respondents were asked certain questions for rating purposes and the overall results were than analyzed by the authors in order to arrive at a final conclusion. What is also significant to understand that respondents were asked about the different sets of questions within a certain time period i.e. there was two weeks gap between the first and the second session for data gathering by the author. On both the occasions, the procedure was same i.e. respondents were asked to rate certain adjectives in order to understand their perception about the development psychology and underlying hypothesis. The results indicate that there was consensus among the various age group representatives regarding the overall process of adult development. Most of the respondents believed that the

Motivation is a very important force that affects and directs our Essay

Motivation is a very important force that affects and directs our behaviour. As a consequence, it is a vital factor for teachers to understand and apply in the - Essay Example Alcott’s, Little Women. Two different interesting books written by two women driven by their passion in writing intended to impart a part of their lives for the society. L.M. Alcott unlike J.K Rowling with her magical adventure, L.M. Scott’s Little Women was about her childhood. She used her own childhood to appeal to the hearts of both young and old embarking on self-expression and women’s rights. Also, her novel draws the public because it’s story of real people struggling to achieve life’s happiness along with it, to learn life’s lesson (Lkwdpl.org, 2006) Ofofegbu (2004) asserts that teacher motivation is equated with the attitude of a teacher concerning work. It has to do with teacher’s desire to participate in the pedagogical processes of the school environment. Moreover, it is concerned with teachers interest in student discipline and control particularly in the classroom. It can determine the involvement or non-involvement in academic and non-academic activities, which operate in schools. The teacher, is the one that translates educational philosophy and objective into knowledge and skill and transferring it to students. Classroom climate is important in teacher motivation. If a teacher creates a safe, healthy, happy atmosphere in the room with supportive resources and facilities for teaching for optimal learning, he/she tends to participate more than expected in the process of management, administration, and the overall improvement of the school. The teacher takes charge and projects the image of one who improves knowledg e and the physical conditions of the classroom through orderliness, discipline and control. He makes a diagnosis of students feelings and attitudes inferred by their behaviour and response in the classroom environment. Classroom management, curriculum, instruction, and teacher–student relationships must create a social context that sets up the pattern for successful

Russia culture 1 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Russia culture 1 - Essay Example They mostly operate an autocratic management style whereby the leader has more power than committees. Their mode of communication in business is very formal. Russia has many ethnic groups, and each individual group has their form of music. Therefore, the culture has diverse music. Their traditional music was mainly ritual folk songs and the holy music of the Orthodox Church (Rickman, Mead, and Gorer 65). In the 19th century, they developed their music and were the founders of classical music. Their music has developed over time and has been characterized with improvement in use of musical instruments The Russians believe in respect for the old people and that failure to obey them results in misfortunes. The formal greetings for males are bone-crushing handshakes, and a soft handshake implies that one is unhappy. Eye contact is valued since it is a sign of honesty between the communicating parties. Women and girls kiss three times or can hug one another. Gift giving is highly appreciated, and it is a taboo to visit other people and fail to take to them gifts or presents. The Russians are very superstitious. They believe in the evil look and do not want unknown people commenting good things about their property. They believe that carrying empty buckets or cans is a sign of bad omen. They also believe that touching their money makes it unprofitable. Russians value wedding so much and the finances to be spent are only limited to the financial ability of the families. To them, it is a big occasion and would lead to lasting enmity if a person ruined that day. The wedding dress is hidden from the male and is supposed to be a surprise to him. The value of the wedding ring defines the amount of love that the bride has for the groom (Rickman, Mead, and Gorer 85). After death, Russians wash the body and dresses it into expensive clothes. The death of the elderly is very sorrowful, and they are treated with respect on

Lafarge-Aget Heracles Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 4500 words

Lafarge-Aget Heracles - Case Study Example Lafarge- Aget Heracles is one of the leading producers of cement. The company has not been able to witness rapid growth within the industry. Some of the problems which are acting as major setbacks to the growth of the company are inability to offer a differentiated product line, huge freight costs added with under utilization of capacity. Out of these problems, the most vital being the inability of the company to offer diverse products which might become one of the principal causes leading to a huge loss of market shares. The company needs to address this problem and the consequences it may suffer as a result of this persistent problem. To strengthen its competitive edge in the market, the company needs to innovate its product line with the help of sophisticated technologies. Though other problems also needs proper resolution, but in this report we limit our scope of study to the analysis of one of the most crucial problem faced by the company which is inability of offering a differe ntiated product line. One of the biggest problems challenging Lafarge - Aget Heracles is their inability to differentiate their product line. The need of a differentiated product line was constantly felt within the cement industry and Aget, being one of the major players of the industry, was very much aware of the fact. To build a niche in the market, it was becoming necessary for Aget to innovate its product line. The need of environment friendly cement mixtures and specialty cement was becoming ardent. To ensure rapid growth in an industry, businesses need to adopt strategies to render higher customer satisfaction and offer value-added products and services. Aget was falling back on this aspect. Looming under its huge cost structure, it was felt that Aget was not keen on implementing innovation strategies. This was becoming an absolute necessity for Aget in order to strengthen its competitive edge in the industry as a whole. Aget was not able to develop its existing product line or offer new products and was becoming unable to meet the changing needs of the customers. For example, government institutions were demanding certain kinds of cement mixtures and specialty cements which would be environment friendly and would not contribute to the depletion of natural resources. With the development of the infrastructure industry in various regions across the world, for example in the middle-east, the demand for a special type of cement was becoming more and more apparent which would ensure greater durability to the infrastructure. But like other cement manufacturers across the world, Aget seemed to underestimate the need of an innovative product line as it

Mktg 3000 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Mktg 3000 - Essay Example This characteristic is extremely attractive because advertisers can target customers when they are driving near their store location. A lot of consumers in America are impulsive buyers and receiving ads into their cellular has personalized psychological effects that can push a sale. This technique of mobile advertisement is referred to as location based advertisement. It is currently commonly used in Japan and Europe. Mobile advertising has had a greater impact in Asia than in the United States. There are companies that are capitalizing on this new niche marketing method to attract new mobile customers. NearbyNow and GPShopper are both offering text messages services that allow the mobile user to search the shoppers of stores for prices and inventory (Plunkett Research). The speed of G3 and G4 networks has increased the capacity of cellular phones to connect to be able to surf the internet at very fast speeds. Smart phones also have the ability to generate tremendous graphics. New sm artphones with windows technology are so advanced that the phone can play Xbox games. The graphics capabilities of the phones can be used by marketers to generate very attractive advertisers. One of the advantages of mobile advertising is that marketing campaigns can be created based on the profile of the mobile users.

Human Resources Questions Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Human Resources Questions - Essay Example Source: (O’Boyle and Aguinis. â€Å"The Best and the Rest: Revisiting the Norm of Normality of Individual Performance†) The recent study that has been conducted reveals the fact that individual performance might not fit a bell curve, however, might follow a distribution where the average is unbalanced, the variance is countless and the pervasiveness of outliers is much elevated. The Paretian curve reveals the fact that the performance of larger number of the population is below the mean in comparison to what is predicted from the Normal Curve (â€Å"The Best and the Rest of Us†). It has been observed from the Paretian curve that the performance of most of the individuals is below the average and thus there is greater variation in the performances. However, the fact is that the performance of the individuals is supposed to be constant each time. By applying the new curve in performance management the performance of the individuals can be observed if they are below the expectations. Hence, it becomes significant to monitor how an individual actually performs in an organization. Inconsistent performance needs to be identified and thus training needs to be offered to the individuals so that the performance can be improved and efficiency of the organization can be increased to a greater extent. Question Two There are numerous assessment instruments that can be suggested for the first client, Rashid, so that he can decide what interests him. The numerous assessment tools related to career are Keirsey Temperament Sorter in which the user is supposed to fill a questionnaire comprising 70 questions that are scored on the Web automatically. The result obtained by the individual tends to be in the form of Myers-Briggs Types. With this approach, the user can gain an idea regarding suitable career options. The other evaluation tool is Motivational Appraisal of Personal Potential Assessment. In this appraisal tool, the user is supposed to fill up a surve y form that consists of seventy one triads of three statements. This assessment tool has been created in order to guide and motivate the people to attain their greatest educational as well as career potential. There are other career assessment tools as well such as Myers Briggs personality tests from Ransdell Associates. It comprises personality as well as career preferences related tests along with other two tests such as Myers-Briggs and Strong Interest Inventory Tests where a person gets the scope to learn regarding him/her as well as his/her career options. JOBehaviors offers a person with numerous job-related assessments in high-demand industries where the goal is to assist the person at identifying the best job. It recognizes the behavior that is most significant for success as well as job compatibility. It further recognizes the job which tends to be the best behavioral fit for the person. JobDiagonals is a career assessment tool where the person is required to give a short t est so that he/she can evaluate their interests and competencies to identify what career path can be followed by them (â€Å"Career and Transition†). Work preference inventory is also another career assessment tool that can be effectively utilized by the person. It is generally based upon the belief that the method of value clarification is vital in career planning. It offers the

Financial Reporting and Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1

Financial Reporting and Analysis - Essay Example The LIFO reserve calculation in inflationary environment where the value of FIFO is higher than the value of LIFO inventory is LIFO Reserve=valuation by FIFO –valuation by LIFO. In a deflationary environment, LIFO Reserve has a possibility of having a negative balance caused by LIFO inventory valuation being higher than its FIFO valuation. LIFO reserve indicates the value which a business entity taxable income as a result of using LIFO method has subsequently been deferred. The balance on LIFO reserve account in 2008 is $524.4 c) If LIFO reserve account was added to the inventory at LIFO, the resulting inventory at the end of 2008 would be $1,346.8. I would consider inventory under LIFO to be more realistic. d) Use of LIFO or FIFO during price increase results to an inflated amount of income. During price decreases, it results to lower income. During constant prices, a normal income results when FIFO or LIFO is used. e) Use of LIFO or FIFO results to inflated cash flows during price increase, a lower cash flow during price decreases and a normal cash flows during normal costs assuming no increase or decrease in inventory quantity. This is a similar case in both pre-tax and after-tax cash flows. g) LIFO layer is an excess of the inventory at base of the current period and the inventory base of previous period LIFO liquidation occurs when the purchase are less than the sales that the inventory costs which are older are utilized in determining the costs of the goods sold. During the periods of rising and LIFO valuation is used, LIFO liquidation that occurs will result to a relatively low COGAS and an amount of income that is inflated. Case 6-4 Diversified Technology. (a)1)Day sales receivables =net sales/365 In 2007 $24,462/365 = $67.019 In 2008 $25,269/365 = $69.23 2) Accounts Receivable turnover = credit sales (net)/average accounts receivables Average account receivables= {($3195+$85) + ($3362+$75)}/2 = $3358.50 Receivable turnover =25269/3358.50 = 7.524 3) Day sales in inventory = number of days in a year (365)/inventory turnover ratio In 2008: 365/8.3867=43.521 In 2007: 365/8.577=42.555 4) Inventory turnover ratio=sales/inventory 2008: $25269/ 3013 =8.3867 2007: $24462/2852 =8.577 5) Working capital = current assets - current liabilities In 2008: $9598- $5,839 = $3759 1n 2007: $9838 - $5,362 = $4476 6) Current ratio = current assets/current liabilities In 2008 = $9598/$5839= 1.644 In 2007 $ 9,838 /$5362 = 1.835 7) Acid test ratio = (current assets – inventory)/current liabilities In 2008: ($9598-$3013)/$5839 = 1.179 In 2007 : (9838-$2852)/$5362 = 1.303 b) Comment on each ratio Day sales receivables indicate the total average number of days taken in collection of all the accounts receivable. It takes around 67 and 69 days in both years. Accounts Receivable turnover is seven as per the calculations. A lower the turnover means a longer the receivables are being held thus the company have an average turnover rate. Day sales in inventory are 43.5 and 42.5 in 2008 and 2007 respectively. It shows number of days in average to sell average inventory in a specified period that is obviously one year. The company is in a position to meet its current obligations within the two years because it had a positive working capital and this shows the company in short term, is healthy. The current ratio of 2:1 can be regarded as acceptable. The company current ratio is acceptable since it can be approximated to 2:1 in the two years. Acid test ratio indicates that the firm already has short term assets that are enough to cover the liabilities that are immediate because it is more than one in both years. c) Comment on liquidity: the current

Physical books Essay Example for Free

Physical books Essay The answer to this question is a simple yes. We shall prove in our discussion why we have chosen this answer. With advances in technology the word ‘paper’ no longer implies a material made of cellulose pulp, derived mainly from wood. As we make further advances, we see that the definition of paper has changed. Physical books that were made of paper have morphed into digital copies called e-books that are available over various mediums of communication such as the Internet or even our very mobile phones. We know that everything has a certain shelf life and if continue to use it beyond that period we will cause ourselves harm, this is also true for physical paper books, time has come to move over the paper books and to enter the world of e-books. Two of the most important factors supporting the cause of the e-book are that it saves: 1. Time and 2. Money 1. Time: In this rapid moving world we are all constantly on the move and we require information immediately, with e-books we can find the information we want immediately. Money: We all want to save money; e-books will be available at only a fraction of the price of the paper books since it will be cheap for the publishers to produce and this benefit will in turn be passed on to the consumer. Reasons for decline of paper books and the popularity of e-books are obvious: 1. E-books can be view almost instantaneously: One can browse through the thousands of e-books available on the Internet by just typing the keywords and purchase the e-book we want by using our credit cards and download the e-book immediately, thus we are saving a lot of overhead costs. 2. E-books cheaper for the publisher to publish as various overhead costs are minimized: Various overheads costs such as huge and expensive printing machinery and their maintenance will disappear; also there will not be need of a large work force to manufacture e-books. 3. E-books cheaper for the consumer to purchase than physical paper books: Since the manufacturing costs of the publishers will be minimized, this will be passed down to the consumer. Thus the consumer will enjoy great savings. 4. E-books can reach a much larger audience worldwide: E-books can be launched instantaneously through out the world; there will be no waiting to buy our copy of the e-book. Also many times a physical paper book is not available in all parts of the world, but this will not be a problem with e-books. 5. E-books are environment friendly: Unlike physical books made from paper, which is derived from timber, e-books don’t need the resources of nature to be made. Thus we will be saving thousands of trees every year and thus reducing the greenhouse effect and making the earth a green place to live in. 6. We can have thousands e-books in our digital device: We can literally have thousands of e-books in our digital device such as a laptop or a computer. The number of e-books is only limited by the storage capacity of our computer or laptop. This is impossible with physical paper books. Can you imagine a person moving around with a library of paper books? But we can move around with our library of e-books on our laptop anywhere! Conclusion: We as humans should be ready to accept the change of books from the physical to the virtual. Are we truly ready to leave the paper copies of the great novels and instead view them as e-books? Some have even said that if we do this we’ll be disrespecting the great authors and poets, but as we wait, the world around us rapidly changing. In the end we may have no choice but to accept the e-book as it gains popularity and following every passing day. This it’s only a matter of time before the paper books are replaced by e-books. Thus we have observed and noted from the above examples that the books made of paper are on their way out and the time of the e-book has arrived. (Sam Kleinman 2007) Works Cited 1. ZATZ Publishing (2007) Print books vs. e-books by Sam Kleinman, page 1[last updated 2007] [Online] Available from: http://www. palmpower. com/issues/issue200206/ebook0602001. html 2. ZATZ Publishing (2007) ZATZ Publishing (2007) Print books vs. e-books by Sam Kleinman, page 2 [last updated 2007] [Online] Available from: http://www. palmpower. com/issues/issue200206/ebook0602002. html

Assignment One Essay Example for Free

Assignment One Essay 1.) What are some of the hardships faced by indentured servants in Virginia during the early days of the colony? a. Some of the hardships faced by indentured servants was disease such as â€Å"scurvy, bloody flux, and diverse other diseases.† Also, they have not much of a variety of food to eat, they eat â€Å"peas and loblollies†, and so they will do anything to be able to eat other variety of foods. The amount of food they get is shared between other men. Therefore their amount of food intake is not enough to make them full. They have clothes but they are old and dirty because they one of everything they wear. Since they do not have anything worth a penny, because if they do others steal it, they cannot have food other than peas. They cannot eat bread because it cost a penny and they don’t have a penny to buy anything. 2.) How does the physical location of Jamestown colony lead to many of the hardships described in this document? b. It seems they are close to possibly Indian attacks or people from other countries because he stated in the story â€Å"but yet we are 32 to fight 3000 if they should come.† He hasn’t seen any deer or venison since he arrived in Jamestown; therefore the meat source is not a great source for food reliability. It takes them a few days to retrieve cargo from the ships. They start to the shore and sleep the first night they get there, then unload the next day and start back to their home with the cargo. 3.) How have conditions at Jamestown affected the writer of this letter? c. He thinks negative about everything. He has nothing in Jamestown to call his own or â€Å"nothing to comfort him.† He expects the worse because people are dying by the hour. Not having much to eat, he doesn’t think he will survive much longer unless his he dies before he receives the package. He believes in God and that he can keep him alive if he drinks water, he heard. He tells his dad to have mercy and pity on him, that life in England was better because he had more food that filled him. He thanks his parents for providing all that they did while he lived in England. He loves his dad and doesn’t want his dad to forget him.

Economic Globalisation and Competition

Economic Globalisation and Competition 1. Introduction Competition is a vital mechanism of the market economy and is an efficient means of guaranteeing consumers a level of quality in terms of the value and price of products and services. Economic globalization has increased volatile growth within international trade and as a result in subject of competition law. Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty ‘prohibits agreements between undertakings; decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which prevent restrict or distort competition’. These agreements shall be void according to 81(2). However, the agreements which satisfy the conditions set out in article 81(3) EC shall not be prohibited, no prior decision to that effect being required. 1.1. Anti-Competitive Agreements Article 81 of the EC Treaty, prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, must be considered in relation to all commercial agreements with a probable EU cross-border impact. The Horizontal and the Vertical agreements are the agreements, which are relevant for the purposes of the application of the competition rules. Horizontal agreements are those between undertakings operating at the same level of production or marketing, while vertical agreements are those completed between undertakings operating at different economic levels. Under EC Competition Law, restrains included in vertical agreements are regarded as not as much damaging than those included in horizontal agreements. In Consten and Grundig v Commission the European Court of Justice considered that Article 81(1) EC applies not only to horizontal agreements but also to vertical agreements. The later decisional practice of the Commission on the treatment of vertical arrangements under Art 81(1) and 81(3) EC, and the case law of the Community Courts, have been one of the most controversial and severely criticized aspects of Community competition policy. These agreements are very important for the functioning of the economy. Commercial agreements may be exempted from the application of article 81(1) under article 81(3). 1.2. The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation However, there is a ‘safe harbour’ for undertakings: the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2790/1999. Safe harbours exist for certain agreements including restrictions providing conditions are met so that agreements falling within the terms of the Regulation are exempt from the application of Article 81(1) EC guaranteeing the enforceability of the agreement and granting protection from antitrust prosecution. Thus, if undertakings wish to be certain that their vertical agreements are in line with EC competition law, they should agree on clauses within the scope of the Regulation. Outside this safe harbour, the European Commission’s Notice Guidelines on Vertical Restraints are a helpful guide for the assessment under Art 81(3) EC and are explaining the application of Regulation 2790/1999 and the Commission’s approach to vertical restraints. The Guidelines on Vertical Restraints sets out the principles for the assessment of vertical agreements under Article 81, including the application of the Regulation to vertical agreements. Article 2(1) of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation gives the definition of vertical agreements and states that Article 81(1) shall not apply to ‘agreements or concerted practices entered into between two or more undertakings each of which operates, for the purposes of the agreement, at a different level of the production or distribution chain, and relating to the conditions under which the parties may purchase, sell or resell certain goods or services’. The Commission adopted the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation on 1999 and the new Block Exemption Regulation is expected in 2010. Modifications might remain quite limited and might concern, especially, the presentation of more certain rules on e-commerce, on internet sales and the treatment of resale price maintenance. 1.3. Scope of Application of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation The objective of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation is to exempt certain categories of vertical agreements that, under certain conditions, may improve economic efficiency within a production or distribution chain and is directed at vertical agreements for the purchase or sale of goods or services. The Regulation covers various vertical agreements and applies to any type of agreement entered into companies, which do not operate at the same level of the production or distribution chain. Agreements are covered by the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation on franchising, selective distribution, exclusive dealing, exclusive purchasing, exclusive supply, and non-genuine agency agreements within the scope of Article 81. An agency agreement falls outside article 81(1) where the agent bears no or only insignificant risks in relation to either of these matters. Article 81(1) does not apply to certain agreements or concerted practices entered into between two or more undertakings. The concept of an undertaking was discussed in Hofner and Elser v Matrocton. It was stated that: â€Å"The concept of an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in economic activity regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way it is financed†. The definition of competing undertakings in Article 1(b) includes actual or potential suppliers in the same product market. The exclusion may be quite wide and uncertain in application. In Tetra Pack I it was considered that a contract within the terms of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation enjoys exemption from Article 81(1), but not from article 82 unless the Commission withdraws the exemption for the future, with a decision. The Regulation does not apply, however, to vertical agreements to rent and lease agreements, as no sale takes place and to agreements which have as their primary object the licensing of intellectual property rights, nor automobile distribution agreements, nor agreements between competitors, except if they are ancillary to a vertical agreement and facilitate the purchase, sale or resale of the contract goods or services by the buyer and vertical agreements whose subject matter falls within the scope of another block exemption regulation. Also, the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation does not cover any restrictions or obligations that do not relate to the conditions of purchase, sale and resale. The Regulation does not apply to vertical agreements with a subject matter that falls within the scope of any other Block Exemption Regulation. The application of the Regulation, in certain circumstances, can be withdrawn by a decision of the European Commission, or the national competition authorities. Also, the European Commission can enact a regulation declaring the Regulation usually inapplicable to certain agreements including specific restraints. 1.4. Agreements between Competitors The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation does not cover vertical agreements that are concluded on a reciprocal basis between competitors. This exclusion may be very broad because it includes both actual and potential competitors, with the latter being defined as companies that would be able and likely to enter the market within one year. Vertical agreements between competitors are covered by the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation if the agreement is non-reciprocal and the buyer has a turnover not exceeding â‚ ¬100 million or the buyer is not a manufacturer of competing goods but only a competitor of the supplier at the distribution level. Also, are covered and where the supplier is a provider of services operating at several levels of trade, while the buyer does not provide competing services at the level of trade where it purchases the contract services. 1.5. Summary Article 81(1) EC prohibits agreements which have anti-competitive effects. By enacting the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, the Commission has establish ‘safe harbors’ for undertakings, that outline conditions regarding when vertical agreements and concerted practices that have an anti-competitive purpose or results and would be prohibited under article 81(1) might be acceptable because they satisfy the criteria of article 81(3). When an agreement fulfills the conditions set out in the Regulation, the agreement is valid and enforceable. The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation is a measure under European Union law that grants an exemption from the application of Article 81. Agreements that meet the conditions set out in the Regulation are considered either not to adversely affect competition on the relevant European market(s) or only to affect competition to a limited degree. It is now time to examine if the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation has worked and whether the Regulation and the vertical Guidelines are need any modification, and, if so, what have to be done. PART I Requirements of the Application of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation contains certain requirements that have to be satisfied before, for the vertical agreement is able to benefit from the Regulation. The market share of the supplier must not exceed 30% (Article 3). Also the agreement must not contain any of the hard-core restrictions (Article 4). Finally, the Regulation contains conditions relating to three certain restrictions (Article 5). 2. The Market Share Cap The Market Share threshold is probably one of the most important provisions of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. In Article 3(1) is stated that ‘the market share held by the supplier does not exceed 30% of the relevant market on which it sells the contract goods or services’. Also, Article 3(2) states that ‘in the case of vertical agreements containing exclusive supply obligations, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply on condition that the market share held by the buyer does not exceed 30% of the relevant market on which it purchases the contract goods or services’. In Telenor/Canal+/Canal Digital the 30% rule prevented the application of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. The market share threshold is aimed to reduce regulatory burdens from those businesses that, according to Bishop and Ridyard, ‘could not behave anti-competitively even if they tried’. The introducing of a market share cap was one the most hotly contested aspects of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. Businesses and its lawyers argued that such a rule would be unworkable, since it is so difficult to establish market shares with any degree of precision, particularly in rapidly developing markets. However, the Commission insisted that there was no better means of ensuring that the benefit of the Block Exemption, did not go to firms with too much market power, and the market share cap stayed, albeit in the form of a single threshold of 30%, rather that two of 20% and of 40% which had been proposed in an earlier draft. If the market share of the parties exceeds the 10% threshold described in the De Minimis Notice, Article 81(1) EC will normally not apply to the agreement if the product is new or if the existing product is sold for the first time on a different geographic market. One factor which may have assisted the Commission in prevailing was the fact that while discussions on the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation were going on, it published its white paper on procedural modernization in the application of articles 81 and 82 EC, which proposed the abolition of the notification system altogether. This may have led some to feel less strongly about the content of the Regulation. 2.1. Calculating the Market Share In order to calculate the market share there must be identified the manufactured goods and geographic markets. Regarding market definition, the general rules apply. On the relevant market, the supplier calculates its market share by comparing its turnover achieved on that market with the total value of sales on that market. However, the benefit of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation will, subject to certain conditions, not always be lost if the market share exceeds the 30% threshold. In Rewe/Meinl the European Commission considered that a supplier is in a situation of â€Å"economic dependence† when the buyer accounts for over a 22% market share and thus buyer power might distort competition. John De Gregorio, European counsel for consumer goods manufacturer Kimberly-Clark Corporation, has stated: ‘With the introduction of market share thresholds to the block exemption analysis, it’s more important than ever for in-house counsel to know how the Commission and European courts may define the â€Å"relevant market† for the goods that your company manufactures and sells, and to be comfortable with the definition your company adopts’. 2.2. The De Minimis Doctrine and Agreements of Minor Importance In addition to the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation and the Guidelines the Commission has issued a series of notices, called ‘Notices on agreements of minor importance’ which give guidance on the agreements which will escape Article 81(1), because the market share of each or both of the parties to the agreement is too small. The European Commission’s de minimis Notice states that no Article 81 subjects are raised by an agreement between undertakings where in vertical agreements the market share of each party to the agreement does not exceed 15% of the relevant market, or 5% for vertical agreements where access to the relevant market is foreclosed by the increasing effect of parallel networks of vertical agreements by several companies. The ‘de minimis’ notice sets the relevant threshold at 5% for horizontal agreements. Commercial agreements between parties where market shares exceed these thresholds might however not have a considerable effect on competition or might benefit from exemption. Nevertheless, the presumption in the de minimis Notice will not apply if the commercial agreement contains hardcore restrictions. In Franz Volk v Establissments Vervaecke SPRL the 0.6% of market share in washing machines considered insignificant. In general, agreements taken between Small and Medium size Enterprisers are ‘de minimis’. Paragraph 3 of the Notice recognizes that agreements between small and medium-sized undertakings are rarely capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States. Finally, Article 8 provides that the Commission can withdraw the benefit of Block Exemption where ‘50 % of a relevant market, contain specific restraints relating to that market. This Regulation shall not become applicable earlier than six months following its adoption’. 2.3. Market Power The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation states that, with some certain exceptions, all vertical restrains are acceptable unless they are coupled to significant market power. Market share thresholds are criticized to be uncertain because they need a definition of the market which is the reason why the idea of market share thresholds has been discarded in most systems. Also, the amount of market power can be considered by reference to market share. Scherer and Ross state that economic analysis shows that in most cases the welfare-reducing effects of vertical restrains depend on the degree of market power the involved firms have. If market shares are in general indicative of potential market power, they can never be considered without considering some other factors to achieve a reasonable assessment of market power for instance the barriers to entry and prospective competition and the characteristics of the oligopolistic dealings between businesses. The Commission in some of its judgments show that market shares do not equal market power. For example, in Alcatel-Telectra the Commission cleared a merger which gave the parties market shares of 83%. Also, in Rhone-Poulenc/SNIA the high degree of concentration was ought to weighed by the existence of rapid technology development. The most obvious issue, according to Professor Denis Waelbroeck, is to consider whether the system should not allow all vertical agreements which do not include hardcore restrictions, separately of the market share of the parties involved, and only apply a control under Article 82 EC in cases of dominance. That would remove the burden above the threshold for businesses to achieve a complex evaluation of their agreements under Article 81(1) and Article 81(3) EC and it will provide more legal certainty in this subject. In addition, the economic assessment required by the Guidelines on Vertical Restrains and the Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty is challenging, and it is doubtful that many judges and parties will have the income or abilities to undertake it sufficiently, thus raising the danger of extensive, expensive and uncertain litigation. 2.4. Arguments about the Threshold The use of market shares as a key element of the Regulation’s treatment has been criticised as being possible to lead to uncertainty and unpredictability given the difficulties in defining the relevant market and market share. It may be argued that the threshold is too low or that it is improperly cast. Those who argue that the threshold is too low point out that the anti-competitive risks can arise only when there is a dominant firm. A non-dominant firm cannot increase rivals costs and cannot make damage to the consumers as they still benefit from inter-brand competition. Those who argue that the threshold is improperly cast would agree with the above criticism but bear in mind that anti-competitive effects can manifest themselves when there is the risk of oligopolistic interdependence. Bishop. and Ridyard state that an assessment of the market’s concentration would be more useful than the assessment of one players market share. Some argue that given the uncertainties over market definition, a market share threshold is not a substitute for a detailed analysis of whether the consumers suffer consequently of a particular practice but this might damage the effectiveness of the existing system which creates a safe harbour so that analytical incomes are allocated to those cases where anticompetitive effects are most possible to occur. The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation creation of a market share threshold which the Regulation does not apply, limits manufacturing businesses that manufacture extremely innovative goods and want to sell them before other businesses have the chance to promote competitive goods into the market. In this situation, the manufacturing businesses with the extremely innovative goods might have a very high market share in a particular industry within a specific geographic area as no competing goods exist. However, as its market share is more than 30%, the manufacturing business is unable to take benefit from the Regulation and would be banned from effectively distributing and selling its manufactured goods in the market. 2.5. Removing the Threshold The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation is unduly restrictive by setting the threshold at 30%. Many agreements thus escape the safe harbour though they are completely harmless from a competition law perspective. By removing the thresholds the sellers using private resellers may be penalised not as much as vertically integrate businesses. Also, abolishing the threshold would give more stability to the system because not all restrictions of competition under 81 are an abuse under 82. On the other hand, if the system is seen as too essential one may think a less radical change to the Regulation consisting of a differentiated approach identifying those clauses which can be problematic above 30% although the parties are not dominant. Those clauses which are always straightforward, even in cases of dominance and which thus essentially deserve an exemption and should not to be matter to any market share threshold and also those clauses which should never advantage from a group exemption even they are below 30%. 2.6. Summary The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation can simplify issues but also can cause difficulties. It makes issues simple as it offers the parties more flexibility in establishing their agreements and if a business’s market share is less than the related market share threshold the agreement will fall outside the scope of the competition rules or be qualified for exemption provided that it does not include hardcore restrictions. The Regulation can also cause difficulties as the parties’ market share must be verified in every case and this can be very hard in situations, for instance as those concerning new markets. Where the market share threshold is exceeded, issues become more difficult as the Regulation requires a complete evaluation of the agreement to define whether it would restrict competition under Article 81(1) and, if so, whether it would meet the requirements for an exemption under Article 81(3). This requires the parties to verify the economic effect of certain restrictions by considering how they would operate in the specific product market involved. The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation principally proposes that businesses with small market shares are given more choice to establish their agreements and will not require undertaking an antitrust review of their dealings. Businesses with large market shares might need to spend time and resources to assessing their agreements from an antitrust perspective. 3. The Hard-Core Restrictions The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation does not apply to vertical agreements that have certain anti-competitive objects. The Regulation lists a number of hard-core restrictions that, if included in the agreement, prevent the safe harbour from applying and cause the exclusion of the whole agreement from the benefit of the Block Exemption even if the market share of the supplier or buyer is below 30%. There are hard-core restrictions which apply to agreements between competitors, and agreements between non competitors. If one hard-core restriction is present in the agreement, the agreement will lose the benefit of the block exemption so Article 81(1) EC may apply. This can result in the unenforceability of the entire agreement and may even lead to fines and it is important that a severability or invalidity clause is included in the agreement where appropriate. Hard-core restrictions are considered to be so serious that they are almost always prohibited. In Javico International and Javico AG v Yves Saint Laurent Parfumes SA it was considered that hard-core restrictions do not infringe Article 81(1) except if they might have considerable effect on trade between Member States. There are five hard-core restrictions which, if there are contained in a vertical agreement, they have the consequence of taking the whole agreement outside the scope of the Regulation. 3.1. Resale Price Maintenance The first hard-core restriction concerns resale price maintenance. Article 4(a) states that the benefit of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation does not apply to vertical agreements that fix prices and have the object of restricting a buyer’s ability to determine its sale price. A supplier is not allowed to fix or minimum the sale price at which distributors can resell his products. The restriction on the buyer’s power to establish his sale price is a hard-core restriction. The Commission in Yamaha considered that an obligation of a purchaser to resell at a particular price is ‘an obvious restriction of competition that is prohibited by Article 81(1)’. However, Paragraph 47 of the Guidelines states that ‘the provision of a list of price recommendations by the supplier to the buyer is not considered in itself as leading to resale price maintenance’ if they do not amount to a fixed or a minimum sale price. In Pronuptia de Paris v Pronuptia de Paris Irmgard Schillgalis, the Court held that the recommendation of prices would not infringe Article 81(1). In genuine agency agreements, where the principal bears all or almost all the financial and commercial risks related to the transactions concluded on his account by the agent, Article 81(1) would generally not be applicable. In Vlaamse Reisbureaus an agreement between travel agents and tour operators indented to oblige the travel agents to examine the prices and tariffs set by the Tour operators and the agents were banned from sharing commissions with or granting refunds to their customers. The Court held that the Belgium system infringed Article 81(1). From an economic point of view, it can be said that there is no certain analysis nowadays as to how to treat with resale price maintenance. Resale price maintenance can be pro-competitive or anti-competitive. Nevertheless, even when applying an effect based approach, it is obvious that in many cases competition will be delayed and that cases when resale price maintenance is efficient are actually quite rare. 3.1.2. Anti-Competitive and Pro-Competitive Effects in Resale Price Maintenance Resale price maintenance is a complex issue and may be harmful in some circumstances. There are two major anti-competitive effects in relation to resale price maintenance. These are the elimination of intra-brand price competition which has as a direct effect the price increase, and the resulting risk of a reduction in inter-brand competition which gains from increased price transparency, thus make easiest price collusion between manufacturers or distributors at a horizontal level. Other anti-competitive effects of the resale price maintenance, according to Luc Peeperkorn, are the loss of pressure on the seller’s scope and the loss of dynamism and innovation from in particular discounters. However, the doubts about the efficiency of and the likelihood that resale price maintenance leads to positive aspects. Economic theory has shown that this practice might have a number of efficiency benefits. For instance, price fixing may prevent ‘free riding’ by retail price discounters on the pre-sales services and/or reputation of full price dealers while it is obvious that intra-brand price competition will be reduced by imposing a fixed or minimum price. This can be reasonable, for example, where a distribution outlet offers first-class services on which customers then rely to buy at a cheaper discounter which does not provide these services and thus is able to charge lower prices. Free riding arises when one business benefits from the performance of another with no paying for it. A minimum price would remove the pricing advantage from the discounter and change intra-brand price competition with competition on services. Minimum resale price maintenance can thus occasionally be economically and commercially reasonable if certain conditions are fulfilled. One could argue that the ‘free riding’ problem could be solved by using other block exempted restrains achieving the same result. Some inefficiencies and externalities caused by the ‘free riding’ problem might be solved by exclusivity clauses, or selective distribution but this restraint may not be an ideal substitute in all conditions for resale price maintenance and it is then questionable that resale price maintenance should be per se prohibited in all cases. Also, resale price fixing can be useful to entrant manufacturers as it might assist them to position their products and thus retailers would have the incentives to invest in making the entrant’s products better known to consumers. Resale price maintenance has created worries in Commission because is being stand on national limits with different costs in different member states. According to Professor Boscheck, taking into account that the economic conditions to consider such restrains ‘are still either too crude or too costly to apply to allow for efficient rules and structured rule of reason’, it is difficult to argue that fixed or minimum prices should not be part of the hard-core list. On the other hand, it appears that such clauses are not considered as if an exemption were inconceivable in any case. There are reasonable arguments that such restrains, considered under an effects-based approach, can rarely be deemed as pro-competitive. It is still uncertain whether free riding by resale price maintenance to rationalize the exclusion of price competition between dealers or retailers. There are methods, for instance promotional allowances or service requirements, which can avoid ‘free riding’ without the anticompetitive side effect of reducing price competition between dealers and retailers. 3.2. Territorial and Customer Restrictions Article 4(b) states that restricting sales by the buyer into specified territories or to specified customers is a hard-core restriction. Distributors must remain free to decide where and to whom they sell. Paragraph 49 of the Guidelines recognizes two restrictions on buyers that would not be considered as hard-core under 4(b): a prohibition on resale except to certain and users for which there is an ‘objective justification related to the product’, and an obligation on the reseller relating to the display of the supplier’s brand names. There are exceptions to 4(b), such as restriction ‘of active sales into the exclusive territory or to an exclusive customer group reserved by the supplier or allocated by the supplier to another buyer’. The Commission in Souris-Topps held that Topps’s distribution agreements for its Pokemon Stickers and Cards failed to benefit from the Block exemption as they violated Article 4(b). The Paragraph 51 of the Guidelines deals with the Internet. It states that ‘A restriction on the use of the Internet by distributors could only be compatible with the Block Exemption Regulation to the extent that promotion on the Internet or sales over the Internet would lead to active selling into other distributors’ exclusive territories or customer groups’. The Commission in Yves Saint Laurent case held that a prohibition on internet publicity and sale usually constitutes a hard-core restriction. The Commission is awry of deterring the growth of e-commerce, and has confirmed that the use of the internet is not considered a form of active sales as it is a reasonable way of reaching customers. Provisions that restrict the territory into which, or the customers to whom, the buyer might sell the contract goods or services are illegal. There are four exceptions to that rule: (1) The restriction of active sales into the exclusive territory or to an exclusive customer group reserved to the supplier or allocated by the supplier to another buyer, where such a restriction does not limit sales by the customers of the buyer, (2) Restrictions of sales to end-users by a buyer operating at the wholesale level of trade, unless it relates to a selective distribution system. This Principle was established by the Commission in Villeroy Boch, (3) the restriction of sales to unauthorised distributors by the members of a selective distribution system, and (4) the restriction of the buyers ability to sell components, supplied for the purposes of incorporation, to customers who would use them to manufacture the same type of goods as those produced by the supplier. A restriction on active sales might not restrict sales by the consumers of the buyer. Thus, a seller can not prohibit his consumers to sell his goods or services on-line without an objective reason and he also can not reserve such sales to himself and/or advertising over the internet. The Vertical Guidelines contain definitions of the terms ‘active sales’ and ‘passive sales’. ‘Active sales’ are defined in paragraph 50 of the Guidelines and it means actively approaching individual customers inside another distributor’s exclusive territory or exclusive consumer group while ‘passive sales’ means responding to unsolicit Economic Globalisation and Competition Economic Globalisation and Competition 1. Introduction Competition is a vital mechanism of the market economy and is an efficient means of guaranteeing consumers a level of quality in terms of the value and price of products and services. Economic globalization has increased volatile growth within international trade and as a result in subject of competition law. Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty ‘prohibits agreements between undertakings; decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which prevent restrict or distort competition’. These agreements shall be void according to 81(2). However, the agreements which satisfy the conditions set out in article 81(3) EC shall not be prohibited, no prior decision to that effect being required. 1.1. Anti-Competitive Agreements Article 81 of the EC Treaty, prohibiting anti-competitive agreements, must be considered in relation to all commercial agreements with a probable EU cross-border impact. The Horizontal and the Vertical agreements are the agreements, which are relevant for the purposes of the application of the competition rules. Horizontal agreements are those between undertakings operating at the same level of production or marketing, while vertical agreements are those completed between undertakings operating at different economic levels. Under EC Competition Law, restrains included in vertical agreements are regarded as not as much damaging than those included in horizontal agreements. In Consten and Grundig v Commission the European Court of Justice considered that Article 81(1) EC applies not only to horizontal agreements but also to vertical agreements. The later decisional practice of the Commission on the treatment of vertical arrangements under Art 81(1) and 81(3) EC, and the case law of the Community Courts, have been one of the most controversial and severely criticized aspects of Community competition policy. These agreements are very important for the functioning of the economy. Commercial agreements may be exempted from the application of article 81(1) under article 81(3). 1.2. The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation However, there is a ‘safe harbour’ for undertakings: the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation 2790/1999. Safe harbours exist for certain agreements including restrictions providing conditions are met so that agreements falling within the terms of the Regulation are exempt from the application of Article 81(1) EC guaranteeing the enforceability of the agreement and granting protection from antitrust prosecution. Thus, if undertakings wish to be certain that their vertical agreements are in line with EC competition law, they should agree on clauses within the scope of the Regulation. Outside this safe harbour, the European Commission’s Notice Guidelines on Vertical Restraints are a helpful guide for the assessment under Art 81(3) EC and are explaining the application of Regulation 2790/1999 and the Commission’s approach to vertical restraints. The Guidelines on Vertical Restraints sets out the principles for the assessment of vertical agreements under Article 81, including the application of the Regulation to vertical agreements. Article 2(1) of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation gives the definition of vertical agreements and states that Article 81(1) shall not apply to ‘agreements or concerted practices entered into between two or more undertakings each of which operates, for the purposes of the agreement, at a different level of the production or distribution chain, and relating to the conditions under which the parties may purchase, sell or resell certain goods or services’. The Commission adopted the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation on 1999 and the new Block Exemption Regulation is expected in 2010. Modifications might remain quite limited and might concern, especially, the presentation of more certain rules on e-commerce, on internet sales and the treatment of resale price maintenance. 1.3. Scope of Application of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation The objective of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation is to exempt certain categories of vertical agreements that, under certain conditions, may improve economic efficiency within a production or distribution chain and is directed at vertical agreements for the purchase or sale of goods or services. The Regulation covers various vertical agreements and applies to any type of agreement entered into companies, which do not operate at the same level of the production or distribution chain. Agreements are covered by the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation on franchising, selective distribution, exclusive dealing, exclusive purchasing, exclusive supply, and non-genuine agency agreements within the scope of Article 81. An agency agreement falls outside article 81(1) where the agent bears no or only insignificant risks in relation to either of these matters. Article 81(1) does not apply to certain agreements or concerted practices entered into between two or more undertakings. The concept of an undertaking was discussed in Hofner and Elser v Matrocton. It was stated that: â€Å"The concept of an undertaking encompasses every entity engaged in economic activity regardless of the legal status of the entity and the way it is financed†. The definition of competing undertakings in Article 1(b) includes actual or potential suppliers in the same product market. The exclusion may be quite wide and uncertain in application. In Tetra Pack I it was considered that a contract within the terms of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation enjoys exemption from Article 81(1), but not from article 82 unless the Commission withdraws the exemption for the future, with a decision. The Regulation does not apply, however, to vertical agreements to rent and lease agreements, as no sale takes place and to agreements which have as their primary object the licensing of intellectual property rights, nor automobile distribution agreements, nor agreements between competitors, except if they are ancillary to a vertical agreement and facilitate the purchase, sale or resale of the contract goods or services by the buyer and vertical agreements whose subject matter falls within the scope of another block exemption regulation. Also, the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation does not cover any restrictions or obligations that do not relate to the conditions of purchase, sale and resale. The Regulation does not apply to vertical agreements with a subject matter that falls within the scope of any other Block Exemption Regulation. The application of the Regulation, in certain circumstances, can be withdrawn by a decision of the European Commission, or the national competition authorities. Also, the European Commission can enact a regulation declaring the Regulation usually inapplicable to certain agreements including specific restraints. 1.4. Agreements between Competitors The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation does not cover vertical agreements that are concluded on a reciprocal basis between competitors. This exclusion may be very broad because it includes both actual and potential competitors, with the latter being defined as companies that would be able and likely to enter the market within one year. Vertical agreements between competitors are covered by the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation if the agreement is non-reciprocal and the buyer has a turnover not exceeding â‚ ¬100 million or the buyer is not a manufacturer of competing goods but only a competitor of the supplier at the distribution level. Also, are covered and where the supplier is a provider of services operating at several levels of trade, while the buyer does not provide competing services at the level of trade where it purchases the contract services. 1.5. Summary Article 81(1) EC prohibits agreements which have anti-competitive effects. By enacting the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation, the Commission has establish ‘safe harbors’ for undertakings, that outline conditions regarding when vertical agreements and concerted practices that have an anti-competitive purpose or results and would be prohibited under article 81(1) might be acceptable because they satisfy the criteria of article 81(3). When an agreement fulfills the conditions set out in the Regulation, the agreement is valid and enforceable. The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation is a measure under European Union law that grants an exemption from the application of Article 81. Agreements that meet the conditions set out in the Regulation are considered either not to adversely affect competition on the relevant European market(s) or only to affect competition to a limited degree. It is now time to examine if the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation has worked and whether the Regulation and the vertical Guidelines are need any modification, and, if so, what have to be done. PART I Requirements of the Application of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation contains certain requirements that have to be satisfied before, for the vertical agreement is able to benefit from the Regulation. The market share of the supplier must not exceed 30% (Article 3). Also the agreement must not contain any of the hard-core restrictions (Article 4). Finally, the Regulation contains conditions relating to three certain restrictions (Article 5). 2. The Market Share Cap The Market Share threshold is probably one of the most important provisions of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. In Article 3(1) is stated that ‘the market share held by the supplier does not exceed 30% of the relevant market on which it sells the contract goods or services’. Also, Article 3(2) states that ‘in the case of vertical agreements containing exclusive supply obligations, the exemption provided for in Article 2 shall apply on condition that the market share held by the buyer does not exceed 30% of the relevant market on which it purchases the contract goods or services’. In Telenor/Canal+/Canal Digital the 30% rule prevented the application of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. The market share threshold is aimed to reduce regulatory burdens from those businesses that, according to Bishop and Ridyard, ‘could not behave anti-competitively even if they tried’. The introducing of a market share cap was one the most hotly contested aspects of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation. Businesses and its lawyers argued that such a rule would be unworkable, since it is so difficult to establish market shares with any degree of precision, particularly in rapidly developing markets. However, the Commission insisted that there was no better means of ensuring that the benefit of the Block Exemption, did not go to firms with too much market power, and the market share cap stayed, albeit in the form of a single threshold of 30%, rather that two of 20% and of 40% which had been proposed in an earlier draft. If the market share of the parties exceeds the 10% threshold described in the De Minimis Notice, Article 81(1) EC will normally not apply to the agreement if the product is new or if the existing product is sold for the first time on a different geographic market. One factor which may have assisted the Commission in prevailing was the fact that while discussions on the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation were going on, it published its white paper on procedural modernization in the application of articles 81 and 82 EC, which proposed the abolition of the notification system altogether. This may have led some to feel less strongly about the content of the Regulation. 2.1. Calculating the Market Share In order to calculate the market share there must be identified the manufactured goods and geographic markets. Regarding market definition, the general rules apply. On the relevant market, the supplier calculates its market share by comparing its turnover achieved on that market with the total value of sales on that market. However, the benefit of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation will, subject to certain conditions, not always be lost if the market share exceeds the 30% threshold. In Rewe/Meinl the European Commission considered that a supplier is in a situation of â€Å"economic dependence† when the buyer accounts for over a 22% market share and thus buyer power might distort competition. John De Gregorio, European counsel for consumer goods manufacturer Kimberly-Clark Corporation, has stated: ‘With the introduction of market share thresholds to the block exemption analysis, it’s more important than ever for in-house counsel to know how the Commission and European courts may define the â€Å"relevant market† for the goods that your company manufactures and sells, and to be comfortable with the definition your company adopts’. 2.2. The De Minimis Doctrine and Agreements of Minor Importance In addition to the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation and the Guidelines the Commission has issued a series of notices, called ‘Notices on agreements of minor importance’ which give guidance on the agreements which will escape Article 81(1), because the market share of each or both of the parties to the agreement is too small. The European Commission’s de minimis Notice states that no Article 81 subjects are raised by an agreement between undertakings where in vertical agreements the market share of each party to the agreement does not exceed 15% of the relevant market, or 5% for vertical agreements where access to the relevant market is foreclosed by the increasing effect of parallel networks of vertical agreements by several companies. The ‘de minimis’ notice sets the relevant threshold at 5% for horizontal agreements. Commercial agreements between parties where market shares exceed these thresholds might however not have a considerable effect on competition or might benefit from exemption. Nevertheless, the presumption in the de minimis Notice will not apply if the commercial agreement contains hardcore restrictions. In Franz Volk v Establissments Vervaecke SPRL the 0.6% of market share in washing machines considered insignificant. In general, agreements taken between Small and Medium size Enterprisers are ‘de minimis’. Paragraph 3 of the Notice recognizes that agreements between small and medium-sized undertakings are rarely capable of appreciably affecting trade between Member States. Finally, Article 8 provides that the Commission can withdraw the benefit of Block Exemption where ‘50 % of a relevant market, contain specific restraints relating to that market. This Regulation shall not become applicable earlier than six months following its adoption’. 2.3. Market Power The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation states that, with some certain exceptions, all vertical restrains are acceptable unless they are coupled to significant market power. Market share thresholds are criticized to be uncertain because they need a definition of the market which is the reason why the idea of market share thresholds has been discarded in most systems. Also, the amount of market power can be considered by reference to market share. Scherer and Ross state that economic analysis shows that in most cases the welfare-reducing effects of vertical restrains depend on the degree of market power the involved firms have. If market shares are in general indicative of potential market power, they can never be considered without considering some other factors to achieve a reasonable assessment of market power for instance the barriers to entry and prospective competition and the characteristics of the oligopolistic dealings between businesses. The Commission in some of its judgments show that market shares do not equal market power. For example, in Alcatel-Telectra the Commission cleared a merger which gave the parties market shares of 83%. Also, in Rhone-Poulenc/SNIA the high degree of concentration was ought to weighed by the existence of rapid technology development. The most obvious issue, according to Professor Denis Waelbroeck, is to consider whether the system should not allow all vertical agreements which do not include hardcore restrictions, separately of the market share of the parties involved, and only apply a control under Article 82 EC in cases of dominance. That would remove the burden above the threshold for businesses to achieve a complex evaluation of their agreements under Article 81(1) and Article 81(3) EC and it will provide more legal certainty in this subject. In addition, the economic assessment required by the Guidelines on Vertical Restrains and the Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty is challenging, and it is doubtful that many judges and parties will have the income or abilities to undertake it sufficiently, thus raising the danger of extensive, expensive and uncertain litigation. 2.4. Arguments about the Threshold The use of market shares as a key element of the Regulation’s treatment has been criticised as being possible to lead to uncertainty and unpredictability given the difficulties in defining the relevant market and market share. It may be argued that the threshold is too low or that it is improperly cast. Those who argue that the threshold is too low point out that the anti-competitive risks can arise only when there is a dominant firm. A non-dominant firm cannot increase rivals costs and cannot make damage to the consumers as they still benefit from inter-brand competition. Those who argue that the threshold is improperly cast would agree with the above criticism but bear in mind that anti-competitive effects can manifest themselves when there is the risk of oligopolistic interdependence. Bishop. and Ridyard state that an assessment of the market’s concentration would be more useful than the assessment of one players market share. Some argue that given the uncertainties over market definition, a market share threshold is not a substitute for a detailed analysis of whether the consumers suffer consequently of a particular practice but this might damage the effectiveness of the existing system which creates a safe harbour so that analytical incomes are allocated to those cases where anticompetitive effects are most possible to occur. The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation creation of a market share threshold which the Regulation does not apply, limits manufacturing businesses that manufacture extremely innovative goods and want to sell them before other businesses have the chance to promote competitive goods into the market. In this situation, the manufacturing businesses with the extremely innovative goods might have a very high market share in a particular industry within a specific geographic area as no competing goods exist. However, as its market share is more than 30%, the manufacturing business is unable to take benefit from the Regulation and would be banned from effectively distributing and selling its manufactured goods in the market. 2.5. Removing the Threshold The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation is unduly restrictive by setting the threshold at 30%. Many agreements thus escape the safe harbour though they are completely harmless from a competition law perspective. By removing the thresholds the sellers using private resellers may be penalised not as much as vertically integrate businesses. Also, abolishing the threshold would give more stability to the system because not all restrictions of competition under 81 are an abuse under 82. On the other hand, if the system is seen as too essential one may think a less radical change to the Regulation consisting of a differentiated approach identifying those clauses which can be problematic above 30% although the parties are not dominant. Those clauses which are always straightforward, even in cases of dominance and which thus essentially deserve an exemption and should not to be matter to any market share threshold and also those clauses which should never advantage from a group exemption even they are below 30%. 2.6. Summary The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation can simplify issues but also can cause difficulties. It makes issues simple as it offers the parties more flexibility in establishing their agreements and if a business’s market share is less than the related market share threshold the agreement will fall outside the scope of the competition rules or be qualified for exemption provided that it does not include hardcore restrictions. The Regulation can also cause difficulties as the parties’ market share must be verified in every case and this can be very hard in situations, for instance as those concerning new markets. Where the market share threshold is exceeded, issues become more difficult as the Regulation requires a complete evaluation of the agreement to define whether it would restrict competition under Article 81(1) and, if so, whether it would meet the requirements for an exemption under Article 81(3). This requires the parties to verify the economic effect of certain restrictions by considering how they would operate in the specific product market involved. The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation principally proposes that businesses with small market shares are given more choice to establish their agreements and will not require undertaking an antitrust review of their dealings. Businesses with large market shares might need to spend time and resources to assessing their agreements from an antitrust perspective. 3. The Hard-Core Restrictions The Vertical Block Exemption Regulation does not apply to vertical agreements that have certain anti-competitive objects. The Regulation lists a number of hard-core restrictions that, if included in the agreement, prevent the safe harbour from applying and cause the exclusion of the whole agreement from the benefit of the Block Exemption even if the market share of the supplier or buyer is below 30%. There are hard-core restrictions which apply to agreements between competitors, and agreements between non competitors. If one hard-core restriction is present in the agreement, the agreement will lose the benefit of the block exemption so Article 81(1) EC may apply. This can result in the unenforceability of the entire agreement and may even lead to fines and it is important that a severability or invalidity clause is included in the agreement where appropriate. Hard-core restrictions are considered to be so serious that they are almost always prohibited. In Javico International and Javico AG v Yves Saint Laurent Parfumes SA it was considered that hard-core restrictions do not infringe Article 81(1) except if they might have considerable effect on trade between Member States. There are five hard-core restrictions which, if there are contained in a vertical agreement, they have the consequence of taking the whole agreement outside the scope of the Regulation. 3.1. Resale Price Maintenance The first hard-core restriction concerns resale price maintenance. Article 4(a) states that the benefit of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation does not apply to vertical agreements that fix prices and have the object of restricting a buyer’s ability to determine its sale price. A supplier is not allowed to fix or minimum the sale price at which distributors can resell his products. The restriction on the buyer’s power to establish his sale price is a hard-core restriction. The Commission in Yamaha considered that an obligation of a purchaser to resell at a particular price is ‘an obvious restriction of competition that is prohibited by Article 81(1)’. However, Paragraph 47 of the Guidelines states that ‘the provision of a list of price recommendations by the supplier to the buyer is not considered in itself as leading to resale price maintenance’ if they do not amount to a fixed or a minimum sale price. In Pronuptia de Paris v Pronuptia de Paris Irmgard Schillgalis, the Court held that the recommendation of prices would not infringe Article 81(1). In genuine agency agreements, where the principal bears all or almost all the financial and commercial risks related to the transactions concluded on his account by the agent, Article 81(1) would generally not be applicable. In Vlaamse Reisbureaus an agreement between travel agents and tour operators indented to oblige the travel agents to examine the prices and tariffs set by the Tour operators and the agents were banned from sharing commissions with or granting refunds to their customers. The Court held that the Belgium system infringed Article 81(1). From an economic point of view, it can be said that there is no certain analysis nowadays as to how to treat with resale price maintenance. Resale price maintenance can be pro-competitive or anti-competitive. Nevertheless, even when applying an effect based approach, it is obvious that in many cases competition will be delayed and that cases when resale price maintenance is efficient are actually quite rare. 3.1.2. Anti-Competitive and Pro-Competitive Effects in Resale Price Maintenance Resale price maintenance is a complex issue and may be harmful in some circumstances. There are two major anti-competitive effects in relation to resale price maintenance. These are the elimination of intra-brand price competition which has as a direct effect the price increase, and the resulting risk of a reduction in inter-brand competition which gains from increased price transparency, thus make easiest price collusion between manufacturers or distributors at a horizontal level. Other anti-competitive effects of the resale price maintenance, according to Luc Peeperkorn, are the loss of pressure on the seller’s scope and the loss of dynamism and innovation from in particular discounters. However, the doubts about the efficiency of and the likelihood that resale price maintenance leads to positive aspects. Economic theory has shown that this practice might have a number of efficiency benefits. For instance, price fixing may prevent ‘free riding’ by retail price discounters on the pre-sales services and/or reputation of full price dealers while it is obvious that intra-brand price competition will be reduced by imposing a fixed or minimum price. This can be reasonable, for example, where a distribution outlet offers first-class services on which customers then rely to buy at a cheaper discounter which does not provide these services and thus is able to charge lower prices. Free riding arises when one business benefits from the performance of another with no paying for it. A minimum price would remove the pricing advantage from the discounter and change intra-brand price competition with competition on services. Minimum resale price maintenance can thus occasionally be economically and commercially reasonable if certain conditions are fulfilled. One could argue that the ‘free riding’ problem could be solved by using other block exempted restrains achieving the same result. Some inefficiencies and externalities caused by the ‘free riding’ problem might be solved by exclusivity clauses, or selective distribution but this restraint may not be an ideal substitute in all conditions for resale price maintenance and it is then questionable that resale price maintenance should be per se prohibited in all cases. Also, resale price fixing can be useful to entrant manufacturers as it might assist them to position their products and thus retailers would have the incentives to invest in making the entrant’s products better known to consumers. Resale price maintenance has created worries in Commission because is being stand on national limits with different costs in different member states. According to Professor Boscheck, taking into account that the economic conditions to consider such restrains ‘are still either too crude or too costly to apply to allow for efficient rules and structured rule of reason’, it is difficult to argue that fixed or minimum prices should not be part of the hard-core list. On the other hand, it appears that such clauses are not considered as if an exemption were inconceivable in any case. There are reasonable arguments that such restrains, considered under an effects-based approach, can rarely be deemed as pro-competitive. It is still uncertain whether free riding by resale price maintenance to rationalize the exclusion of price competition between dealers or retailers. There are methods, for instance promotional allowances or service requirements, which can avoid ‘free riding’ without the anticompetitive side effect of reducing price competition between dealers and retailers. 3.2. Territorial and Customer Restrictions Article 4(b) states that restricting sales by the buyer into specified territories or to specified customers is a hard-core restriction. Distributors must remain free to decide where and to whom they sell. Paragraph 49 of the Guidelines recognizes two restrictions on buyers that would not be considered as hard-core under 4(b): a prohibition on resale except to certain and users for which there is an ‘objective justification related to the product’, and an obligation on the reseller relating to the display of the supplier’s brand names. There are exceptions to 4(b), such as restriction ‘of active sales into the exclusive territory or to an exclusive customer group reserved by the supplier or allocated by the supplier to another buyer’. The Commission in Souris-Topps held that Topps’s distribution agreements for its Pokemon Stickers and Cards failed to benefit from the Block exemption as they violated Article 4(b). The Paragraph 51 of the Guidelines deals with the Internet. It states that ‘A restriction on the use of the Internet by distributors could only be compatible with the Block Exemption Regulation to the extent that promotion on the Internet or sales over the Internet would lead to active selling into other distributors’ exclusive territories or customer groups’. The Commission in Yves Saint Laurent case held that a prohibition on internet publicity and sale usually constitutes a hard-core restriction. The Commission is awry of deterring the growth of e-commerce, and has confirmed that the use of the internet is not considered a form of active sales as it is a reasonable way of reaching customers. Provisions that restrict the territory into which, or the customers to whom, the buyer might sell the contract goods or services are illegal. There are four exceptions to that rule: (1) The restriction of active sales into the exclusive territory or to an exclusive customer group reserved to the supplier or allocated by the supplier to another buyer, where such a restriction does not limit sales by the customers of the buyer, (2) Restrictions of sales to end-users by a buyer operating at the wholesale level of trade, unless it relates to a selective distribution system. This Principle was established by the Commission in Villeroy Boch, (3) the restriction of sales to unauthorised distributors by the members of a selective distribution system, and (4) the restriction of the buyers ability to sell components, supplied for the purposes of incorporation, to customers who would use them to manufacture the same type of goods as those produced by the supplier. A restriction on active sales might not restrict sales by the consumers of the buyer. Thus, a seller can not prohibit his consumers to sell his goods or services on-line without an objective reason and he also can not reserve such sales to himself and/or advertising over the internet. The Vertical Guidelines contain definitions of the terms ‘active sales’ and ‘passive sales’. ‘Active sales’ are defined in paragraph 50 of the Guidelines and it means actively approaching individual customers inside another distributor’s exclusive territory or exclusive consumer group while ‘passive sales’ means responding to unsolicit