In accordance with the undertaking programme, the company may, under the alleged monopoly agreement, request the suspension of the investigation and commit to take specific measures within the time allowed by the COMPETITION authorities of the PRC to eliminate the influence of the conduct. Shortly thereafter, the court considered a newspaper`s refusal to sell advertisements to companies that also purchased advertisements from a new radio station. (27) Some commentators view this practice as an attempt by the newspaper to be the exclusive provider of local advertising to their customers. (28) The Court found that Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibited the newspaper from reclaiming its “essential monopoly” by pushing the radio station to the store`s stop (29), as it found that the newspaper violated antitrust laws “when it used its monopoly to destroy threatened competition.” (30) Some commentators argue that this case is an example of an exclusivity regime with obvious anti-competitive effects, but with no anti-competitive effects removed. (31) However, on the basis of decision-making practices open to the public by the competition authorities of the PRC, there are not yet any hard-line monopoly agreements that are exempt under section 15 of the ANTI-monopoly act of the PRC. As a result, it appears that it has been difficult, if not impossible, for companies in outright monopoly agreements to demonstrate that the agreements in question can be exempted under section 15 of the ANTI-monopoly act of the PRC. 1. the facts of the alleged monopoly agreement; In 1994, the U.S. government criticized Microsoft for using its significant market share in the PC operating systems sector to prevent competition and maintain a monopoly.
According to the complaint filed on July 15, 1994, “the United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, is bringing this civil action to prevent the defendant Microsoft Corporation from using exclusive and anti-competitive contracts for the distribution of its pc operating system software. Through these contracts, Microsoft has illegally maintained its monopoly on PC operating systems and has an unduly reluctant trade. See section of legislation on cartels and abuse of dominance, see 1, 218 and 126970; See also United States v. Denstply Int`l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181, 193 (3d. Cir. 2005) (“The correct investigation is not whether direct sales allow a competitor to survive, but whether direct selling poses “a real threat” to the defendants` monopoly.” (with U.S. indication v.