legal issues in business a comprehensivereport topic unfair competition and antitrust laws

Overview of unfair competition and Antitrust law:...4a.. UnfaircompetitionandantitrustlawsinVietnam:In Vietnam, on December 3, 2004, the Competition Law was passed by the NationalAssembl

Lecturer:NguyễnQuốcB oả“LegalIssuesinBusiness:AComprehensiveReport”

- LêThị Hậu-SS160105- VũM nhTiạến-SS160096- LêTrầnMinhNgọc-SS160031- NguyễnThị MinhThư -SS160128- NguyễnThànhNguyên-SS160189- NguyễnHoàngYếnNhi-SS160136

1 Influence of business law: 4

2 Overview of unfair competition and Antitrust law: 4

a Unfair competition law: 4

b.On the business side: 18c.Onthepersonalside: 18

V References: 19

1 Influenceofbusinesslaw:

Business law is a section of code that is involved in protecting liberties and rights,maintaining orders, resolvingdisputes,andestablishingstandardsforbusinessconcernsand their dealings with government agenciesandindividuals.Everystatedefinesitsownset of regulations and laws for business organizations Similarly, it is also theresponsibility of the business concerns to know the existing rules and regulationsapplicabletothem

Inboththesubjectofeconomicsandpeople'sdailylives,economiclaw is significant.Businesses follow the law because of economic sector laws, and the government canemphasizeitsownershipposition.Establishguidelines,actasafoundationforenterprisestofollow,andidentifyappropriatebusinessmodels.

Furthermore, economic law providesfairnesstosubjectsinafreemarketbyassistingfirms in times of conflict or disagreement Economic law also controls how firmsproduce their goods,withthegoalofminimizingenvironmentaldamageandmaximizingenvironmentalprotectionefforts.

In practical terms, economic law plays a crucial role Since its promulgation, theeconomiclawhasprotectedtherightsandinterestsoflegitimatefirms operating in bothlocalandforeignmarkets,resolvingthemajorityofneedlesscommercialconflicts.

2 OverviewofunfaircompetitionandAntitrustlaw:a Unfaircompetitionlaw:

Unfaircompetitionisanenterprise'sbehaviorthatiscontrary to the principles of goodfaith, honesty, commercial practices, andotherbusinessstandards,causingdamageormay causedamagetotheinterestsofthestateorlegitimaterightsandinterestsofotherbusinessesorconsumers.

Coercioninbusiness:usingpressure,threats,orcoercionagainstbusinesspartners.Disrupting thebusinessactivitiesofotherenterprises:negativeimpactoncompetitors'businessoperations.

Advertisingaimedatunfaircompetition:usingadvertisingtobeatcompetitors withoutadheringtoethicalprinciples.

Abuse of monopoly positionsisprohibitedunderotherlaws:Theseareotherviolationsoflawsrelatedtomonopolies.

c UnfaircompetitionandantitrustlawsinVietnam:

In Vietnam, on December 3, 2004, the Competition Law was passed by the NationalAssembly for the first time and took effectonJuly1,2005.Accordingtoassessments,theCompetitionLaw2004isanimportantlegalcorridor that contributes to promotingthe process of creating and maintaining a fair and healthy competitive environmentbetweenentities,therebycreatingmotivationforlandeconomic development water andeffectively mobilize social resources to best protecttheinterestsofconsumers.Despiteachieving some significantachievements,resultsovermanyyearsofimplementationofthe 2004 Competition Law have not been as expected because, in the process ofimplementing this law, limitations, difficulties, and problems in the implementationprocesshavegraduallybeenrevealed.Toovercomethe limitations of the 2004 bill, onJune12,2018,theNationalAssemblypassed the Competition Law 2018 (CompetitionLaw2018),amendingandsupplementingtheCompetitionLaw2004 to take effect onJuly1,2019.

Accordingly,theCompetitionLaw2018expandsthescopeof regulation and subjects ofapplication, that is,anyact,agreement,merger,oracquisitiontransactionthattakesplaceatanytime,evenwithintheterritoryofanycountry.Vietnameseterritoryoroutside theVietnamese territory but capable of significantly restricting competition in theVietnamese market will fall underthescopeoftheCompetitionLaw2018.Inaddition,the amended law also regulates and clarifies prohibited acts of state agencies abusingtheir positions and powers to illegally interferewithcompetitionactivities.Thisisanewregulation to comprehensively improvetheenforcementoftheCompetitionLawforallentities,organizations,andindividualswhoseactionsareconsideredtohurt competitioninthemarket.

First, control acts that restrict competition or acts that may lead to restrictions oncompetition, especiallywhenopeningthemarketandintegratingintotheinternationaleconomy Second, protect the legitimate business rights of businesses, against unfaircompetitionpractices.Finally,createandmaintainafairbusinessenvironment.

1 Effectsofunfaircompetition/antitrustlawsinbusiness:

Create a healthy competitive environment: unfair competition and antitrust laws helpcreate a fairbusinessenvironmentandhealthycompetition.Thisencouragesbusinessesto compete based on product quality, service, and price, insteadofusingunfairpracticessuchasmarketmonopolies,unfairprices,oruncompetitivebehavior.otherhealthy.Protecting consumer rights:Unfaircompetitionandantitrustlawsinbusinessensurethatconsumersbenefitfromhealthycompetition.Thisensuresthatconsumershave a widechoiceofproductsandservices,goodquality,andreasonableprices.

Encourage innovation and economic development: Unfair competition andanti-monopoly laws in business encourageinnovationandeconomicdevelopment.Bycreating a healthy competitive environment, businesses are motivated to improve thequalityofproductsandservicesandseeknewbusinessmethods.Thiscontributesto theeconomicdevelopmentandgrowthofacountry.

Prevent unfair and monopolistic practices: Unfaircompetitionandanti-monopolylawsin business help prevent unfair and monopolistic practices in business This protectssmall and medium-sized enterprises from unfaircompetitionfromlargeenterprisesandpreventsthecreationofmarketmonopolies.

2 ContactVietnam:

Reality shows that although the Competition Law has beenineffectformorethan3yearswithstrictlawsandpenaltyregulationsthatareconsidered"strong," after morethan 3 years of implementation, the law is still not effective has a great impact onbusinesses, even though many regulations are still "on paper." According to theassessment of legal experts, Vietnam's Competition Law is very close to internationallaw,withenoughbasistocreateandmaintainafairbusiness environment, monopolisticcontrol,andprotectionofconsumers,aswellas international integration Although theimplementationoftheCompetitionLawwillhavedirectimpacts on businesses and helpthem eliminate many difficulties inthebusinessprocess,Vietnamesebusinessesappearto be very indifferent to this Even many businesses when asked do not know theexistenceoftheCompetitionLaworthestateagencyresponsibleforenforcingthislaw.

1 Casestudy1:StandardOilantitrustlawsuit:a Casesummary:

Inthelate19thandearly20thcenturies,JohnD.RockefellerturnedStandardOil into agiant corporation that controlled 91% of oil production and 85% of revenues in theUnitedStatesin1904.

However, in 1906, the United States government accusedStandardOilofviolatingtheShermanActof1890.TheStandardOilCompanyplannedtorestrictthepetroleumtrade,commonly known as 'crude oil', refined oil, and other petroleum products, betweencertain states and territories of the United States and Colombia and with foreigncountries,andforexclusivecommerce.

In addition, StandardOilhassignedacontractandtrustagreementformanyindependentcompanies, corporations, limited partnerships, and individuals engaged in purchasing,transporting, refining, and selling oil and their products between individuals Theseactionsviolateantitrustlawsandaffectfreedomandcompetitionincommerce.

b Plaintiff,defendant,appellant:

c Caseanalysis:

The Standard Oil antitrust case of 1906wasofgreatimportancetothecompanybecauseit not only affected the way it did business but also had a profound impact on thecompany'sreputationandprofits.

For example, this company suffered from The US SupremeCourtruledthatitwasforced to split into 34 smaller companies in 1911 This resulted in the loss of itsmonopoly position and forced the company to compete with new competitors Afterbeing split, StandardOil'ssubsidiarieshadtoadjusttheirbusinessstrategiestoadapttothenewcompetitiveenvironment.Theyhaveinvestedinresearchanddevelopmentto

create new petroleum products and improve production processes At the same time,expandyourbusinessbeyondtheUnitedStates,seeknewopportunitiesabroad,andbuildinternationalrelationships.

For example, Socony-Vacuum:wasformedfromthemergerofStandardOilCompanyofNew York and Vacuum Oil Company, which later became Mobil Oil Corporation;Vaseline, originally part of Standard Oil, from petroleum waste, and ChesebroughManufacturingCompany,whichownedVaseline,wasacquiredbyUnileverin1987.During and after thelawsuitended,thepublicandmediaportrayedStandardOilasasymbol of greed and unchecked monopoly power Ida Tarbell's muckraking articles,especially the series about Standard Oil, fueled public outrage and contributed to theformation of negative views ofthecompany ThelitigationandsubsequentbreakupofStandard Oil weakened the company's image and led manytoviewStandardOilasanexample of the need for good governance and government regulation against largecompaniestoprotectconsumerinterestsandcompetitivemarkets.

Atthesametime,thesplit and change in business structure could lead to a decrease inStandard Oil's profits in the short term This companymayincuradditionalcostsforlegal actions, compliance with laws, and reputation improvement Along with losingmarketshareduetohavingtocompetewithnewcompetitors.

Thiscaseestablishedaprecedentforthelegaladministrationof antitrust laws and led tothecreationofnewfederalagenciestaskedwithenforcingtheselaws.

d Firstinstance/appeal/sentenceresults:

In 1911, the US Supreme Court ruled that Standard Oil should be split into 34independentsubsidiaries.Thesepeopleheldsharesin the subsidiary equal to the numberofsharestheyheldinStandardOil.

e Conclusion:

According to antitrust laws,themergerofthestocksofvariouscompaniesintothehandsof the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey in 1899 constituted a combination ofrestraintsontrade.

StandardOilCompanyofNewJerseywasprohibitedfromvotingstockorexercisinganycontrol over its 34 subsidiaries Subsidiariesareprohibitedfrompayinganydividendsto

Standard Oil Company orallowingStandardOiltoexerciseanycontrolbasedonstockownership or combined power Individuals and corporations are also prohibited fromparticipatingorcollaboratingtocircumventtheorder.Furthermore,defendants StandardOil Company and its 34 subsidiarieswerebarredfromengagingincontinuedinterstatecommerce of petroleum or petroleum-related products during the duration of theShermanAct

In May1911,JusticeEdwardWhiteoftheSupremeCourtdeclaredthattheUnitedStatesdid not agree with the Standard Oil Company's restrictive trade plan to monopolizegasoline,givingthecompanysixmonthstocomplywithself-dissolution.

2 Casestudy2:Microsoftantitrustlawsuit:a Casesummary:

Inthelate20th century, one of the most troublesome antitrust lawsuits in history brokeout, in which technology giant Microsoft, undertheleadershipofCEOBillGates,wassaidtohaveusedunfairstrategies.strongtodominatethewebbrowsermarket.

Microsoft tried itsbesttolaunchInternetExplorer(IE)in1995.Moresurprisingly,BillGatesdelivereda"fatalblow"whenannouncingthatIEwouldbe provided for free toWindows operating system users Thus, customersnolongerneedtoinstallanexternalbrowser,NetscapeNavigator.

It can be seen that Microsoft has used its monopoly in theoperatingsystemmarkettobringdownitscompetitors.OnMay18,1998,theUSDepartmentof Justice and judgesfrom20differentstatesfiledalawsuitaccusingMicrosoftofmonopolistic behavior anddestroyingbusinessesinthesameindustry.

b Plaintiff,defendant,appellant

c Caseanalysis:

In the late20thcentury,underthecommandoffounderandCEOBillGates,Microsoftissaid to have expanded into almost all areas of the computer industry, such asapplications,operatingsystems,anddevices.peripheral,

Gradually,Microsoft'sgrowingpresenceinthepersonalcomputermarketraised alarmbells with federal officials The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launched aninvestigation in the early 1990stodeterminewhetherthegiantwastryingtocreateamonopoly.

However,atthattime,therewasoneareathatBillGatescouldnotdominate: the WorldWide Web,ortheinternet.Netscape,arelativelyyoungcompetitorofMicrosoft,wasonestep ahead when it successfully introduced theNetscapeNavigatorbrowser.Sinceitslaunch in 1994, Netscape has captured morethan70%oftheglobalbrowsermarketinlessthanayear.

Unsatisfied, Microsoft tried its best to launch Internet Explorer (IE) in 1995 Moresurprisingly, Bill Gates delivered a "fatal blow" when announcing that IE would beprovided for free to Windows operating systemusers.Thus,customersnolongerneedtoinstall an externalbrowser,NetscapeNavigator.ItcanbeseenthatMicrosofthasuseditsmonopolyintheoperatingsystemmarkettobringdownitscompetitors.

d Firstinstance/appeal/sentenceresults:

Arguing that Microsofthashinderedcompetitioninthemarket,ChiefJusticeThomasPenfield Jackson ruled against the technology giant, tarnishing the reputation of acorporation once considered the driving force behind the technology giant Interneteconomy.

Specifically,thejudgeconcludedthatMicrosoftviolatedthe Sherman Antitrust Act byintentionally integrating the IE browser into the Windows operating system to"extinguishcompetitionthatwasjustignitinginthemarket."

At the same time, Mr Jackson also said that Microsoft had threatened computermanufacturers to install IE, otherwise, Microsoft would stop discounting prices andimpose strict conditions toforcecompetitorstochooseoneoftwo:NetscapeNavigatororNetscapeNavigator.IE.

On June 7, 2000, the court ordered Microsoft to split the corporation as a remedy.Accordingly, Microsoft must split into two separate units: one to produce operatingsystems,andonetodevelopothersoftware.

e Conclusion:

Itseemedthataftermucheffort,theweakcompaniesthathadbeen under pressure fromBill Gates's"favoritechild"hadreceivedsweetresults,andthenMicrosoftdecidedtoappealandreversethesituation.

InSeptember2001,theUSDepartmentofJusticeannouncedthatMicrosoft no longerneeded to be broken up, rejecting Judge Jackson's ruling Then,onNovember2ofthesame year, both sidesmadeconcessionsandcametoamutualagreement.Ultimately,Microsoftonlyhastoagreetosharetheapplicationprogramminginterfacewithothercompanies.

After all, the verdict became a joke for America when Microsoft was still a giant,dominating with products such as the Windows operating system, and Bill Gates -despite stepping down from his position as Microsoft executive in recentyears,itisstillamongtherichestpeopleintheworld.

Meanwhile, Netscape ultimately could not compete with IEandwasforcedtomergewithAmericanOnlineGroupfor$4.2billioninNovember1998.

The Antitrust Sherman Act is an 1890lawprohibitingmonopoliesandrestraintsoftradeininterstatecommerce.

After the Microsoftantitrustlawsuit,thiscompanyfacedseveralsignificantdamagesandconsequences:

First, loss of reputation: The antitrust lawsuit has damaged part of Microsoft'sreputation The company is considered to have used anunfairstrategytodominatetheweb browsermarket.ThishasdamagedMicrosoft'simageandreputationintheeyesofthepublicandbusinesscommunity.

Second, loss of market share: Before the lawsuit, Microsoft used its monopoly tocompete with rivals, especially Netscape Navigator However, after the lawsuit,Microsoft faced strict scrutiny and antitrust measures This has affected Microsoft'sabilitytogainandmaintainmarketshareinthewebbrowsermarket.

Third,legalcosts:Theantitrustlawsuitlastedalongtime and required Microsoft to paya large amount of compensation and legal costs The company has faced fines andcompetingrecoverymeasures.ThishasputsignificantfinancialpressureonMicrosoft.