This Characteristics of Unfair Business Competition
This Characteristics of Unfair Business Competition
A
A
A
JAKARTA - Senior economist, Faisal Basri became an expert witness in the trial of monopoly allegations and bottled water business competition (AMDK). In his statement, Faisal revealed some characteristics of alleged unfair business competition.
He said that an action should be alleged to violate business competition if business actors prohibit the competitor's products are done systemically and massively.
"In addition, performed not alone but done tiered. Also uniform strategy between depo. For example with another depo, there is a circular, there is a threat, in general and not eksidental and not random," said Faisal in the trial at Supervisory Commission and Business Competition (KPPU) office, Tuesday (24/10).
Added Faisal, this alleged violation is actually not a big problem and can be solved without involving KPPU.
"It is not a big case that should be resolved between the two companies in dispute without involving KPPU, KPPU should not deal with trivial problems," said Faisal.
Meanwhile, KPPU investigator Arnold Sihombing saw the opinion of expert witness in the economic theory of true business competition.
"If investigators can prove that there is prohibited behavior in order to prevent competition or exclude competitors from the market, the allegations of article 15 paragraph (3) letter b and article 19 letter a and b may be imposed on the reporters," Arnold said.
So far, the investigation team of KPPU has already inventory the alleged violation by Reported Party 1 and Reported Party 2.
"Evidence is over, obtained from the examination, the testimony of the victim SO, witness SO from the party reported, proof of e-mail communication from the manufacturer and Aqua distributor, the form of socialization from Aqua producers, statements made shop made PT BAP, testimony staff producers Aqua PT TIV and PT BAP. We will we all though in conclusion by considering the criticism of the legal and economic experts in the previous examination," said Arnold.
He said that an action should be alleged to violate business competition if business actors prohibit the competitor's products are done systemically and massively.
"In addition, performed not alone but done tiered. Also uniform strategy between depo. For example with another depo, there is a circular, there is a threat, in general and not eksidental and not random," said Faisal in the trial at Supervisory Commission and Business Competition (KPPU) office, Tuesday (24/10).
Added Faisal, this alleged violation is actually not a big problem and can be solved without involving KPPU.
"It is not a big case that should be resolved between the two companies in dispute without involving KPPU, KPPU should not deal with trivial problems," said Faisal.
Meanwhile, KPPU investigator Arnold Sihombing saw the opinion of expert witness in the economic theory of true business competition.
"If investigators can prove that there is prohibited behavior in order to prevent competition or exclude competitors from the market, the allegations of article 15 paragraph (3) letter b and article 19 letter a and b may be imposed on the reporters," Arnold said.
So far, the investigation team of KPPU has already inventory the alleged violation by Reported Party 1 and Reported Party 2.
"Evidence is over, obtained from the examination, the testimony of the victim SO, witness SO from the party reported, proof of e-mail communication from the manufacturer and Aqua distributor, the form of socialization from Aqua producers, statements made shop made PT BAP, testimony staff producers Aqua PT TIV and PT BAP. We will we all though in conclusion by considering the criticism of the legal and economic experts in the previous examination," said Arnold.
(rnz)
Explore More