tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post2861435563702280971..comments2023-10-29T17:43:27.054+07:00Comments on café salemba: Off with their head, or not?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-77363487072870495452007-12-03T13:28:00.000+07:002007-12-03T13:28:00.000+07:00Hi Arya, You are right that 75% (or 50%) as a benc...Hi Arya, <BR/>You are right that 75% (or 50%) as a benchmark of market share is non sense. <BR/><BR/>However, we should be careful with the Article 25 Point 1 (Law Number 5/1999) that the concern of the law is abuse of dominant position not the dominant position. So, impact of dominant position is prohibited by the law not being monopolist (having 75% or 50%). <BR/><BR/>Firms are never guilty having more than 50% or 75%. Only if they abuse their monopoly position, they will be guilty. The abuse could be collusive behaviors, predatory pricing, market restrictions, and so on. All is anti-competitive behaviors.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I curious with the role of government should be. Which one do you choose guys a bad government of no government?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18156735.post-8037892137963176332007-12-01T00:20:00.000+07:002007-12-01T00:20:00.000+07:00The government has always been guilty in many coun...The government has always been guilty in many counts -- from departmental procurement to "rice" procurement. I wish the law applies to the government too.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I think the problem lies in the definition of anti-competition. A benchmark of "ownership of 75% of market share" is nonsense. There are, after all, natural monopolies. The law should focus on anti-competitive behaviors, not market shares.Arya Gaduhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04330590627984700100noreply@blogger.com