It is the policy of the International
Digital Publishing Forum ("IDPF" or "the Forum") to comply
with all antitrust and competition laws. The fundamental objective of the antitrust
laws is to protect and promote free and fair competition.� These laws reflect the belief that a
competitive marketplace will enable consumers to obtain the highest quality
goods and services at the lowest price.� IDPF
supports the public policies embodied in these laws, and it is the
association's policy to comply fully with them.
Through the adoption and
issuance of the IDPF Antitrust Compliance Policy and Guidelines (the
"Policy"), IDPF affirms its commitment to abide by the spirit and the
letter of all antitrust laws.� All
members of IDPF and their representatives must follow the policy and guidelines
contained herein as part of their ongoing obligations to the Forum. The
Guidelines are intended to provide basic guidance on the antitrust laws which
may be applicable to the activities of IDPF. Counsel should be consulted in all
cases involving specific situations or interpretations.
����������� This Antitrust Compliance Policy and Guidelines provides
a brief overview of some of the more common antitrust issues that may arise as
a result of your affiliation with IDPF.� The goal is not to provide a
comprehensive explanation of the antitrust laws or to make you an expert in the
area.� Rather, the Policy is intended to help you recognize the kinds
of conduct that the antitrust laws address and to enable you to identify when
you should seek legal advice.� Whenever
you have any questions about the possible application of the antitrust laws to
any of your activities, you should consult legal counsel for IDPF or or your
own legal counsel who has responsibility for considering the antitrust
implications of the business activities in question.
����������� The antitrust laws are based on the
fundamental assumption that a competitive process will increase the supply and
reduce the price of goods and services. These laws therefore prohibit conduct
that will unreasonably restrain competition or restrict the freedom of action
of businesses in their respective operations.��
The procompetitive purposes of standard-setting bodies have long been
recognized.� Still, because Forums such
as IDPF gather competitors together, they are susceptible to certain antitrust
pitfalls, and thus frequently are scrutinized by antitrust agencies.� As such, IDPF must operate with heightened
sensitivity to antitrust laws.�
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.� Another law
that frequently is applied to the conduct of trade associations and
standard-setting bodies is Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.� Section 5 prohibits "unfair methods of
competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices
in or affecting commerce." The provisions of the FTC Act can be applied to
a company acting alone (unlike Section 1 of the Sherman Act) and are written
more broadly than the provision of the Sherman Act.
State Laws.� It is also important to recognize that state
antitrust laws may be applicable to certain IDPF activities.� These laws generally parallel the provisions
of federal antitrust law.� Because these
Guidelines cannot catalog each state law, appropriate counsel should be
consulted if any questions arise as to the propriety of actions conducted in a
particular state.
What is an agreement?�
It is not necessary for an agreement to be formal or memorialized in
writing for it to constitute an antitrust violation.� A court may find there has been an illegal
"agreement" under the antitrust laws even though there is no written
contract, no "handshake," and no words that indicate an explicit
agreement. An agreement may include
informal, unwritten, and even unspoken agreements or understandings. In
addition, illegal agreements can be established by circumstantial evidence,
such as a pattern of conduct or mere presence at a meeting at which illegal
agreements were made.
In fact,
competitors may be accused of making illegal agreements even though there are
no direct communications at all.� If, for
example, a price increase is announced well in advance of the effective date,
it may sometimes be argued that the announcement was a �signal� to competitors
that invited an agreement to take similar action.�
From a
practical standpoint, IDPF members should focus their concern on the following
antitrust violations that may arise pursuant to competitor agreements:
Price Fixing.�
It is not always easy to recognize what is and what is not price
fixing.� Any agreement among competitors
to raise, lower or stabilize prices is unlawful, even if the agreed-upon price
is reasonable, and even if the agreement is never put into effect.� Details like credit terms, discounts, and
warranties are an element of price.�
Competitors may be charged with illegal price fixing if they discuss
general pricing ranges or policies because these discussions may have an impact
on actual price quotations.
Market Allocation.�
Agreements among actual or potential competitors to allocate customer,
territories, or lines of business also are usually serious antitrust violations
because they reduce or eliminate price competition.� Thus, it is illegal for two competitors to
agree that one of them will not sell in a particular territory or to a
particular customer that they both can presently serve.� Similarly, it is unlawful for them to agree
on the type of services or products that they will offer to customers.
It may not
be an illegal allocation, however, if these limitations are contained in
intellectual property licensing agreements because such licensing arrangements
may be more pro‑competitive than an alternative scenario in which no
licenses are granted at all.� Similarly,
allocation of customer, territory, or line of business responsibilities in
connection with a joint venture among actual or potential competitors may also
be permissible because that division of roles is reasonably necessary for the
joint venture to achieve efficiencies or produce better products and services
that benefit consumers.� Legal advice is
needed in these situations.
����������� Group
Boycotts.� A collective refusal by otherwise competing
companies to deal with some third party, sometimes called a �group boycott,�
raises serious antitrust concerns.� It is
dangerous for one company to agree with another company that neither one will do
business with a particular supplier or customer, or that they will do business
only with certain suppliers or customers or only on certain terms and
conditions.
Agreements
with suppliers and customers (other than those relating to resale prices)
usually are legal unless some anticompetitive effect can be demonstrated.� Moreover, these agreements can often be
justified on the ground that they are reasonable.� Such agreements are also far more likely to
be embodied in specific written contracts, rather than inferred from
discussions, so there is less risk that ambiguous conduct will be
misunderstood.�
The
following kinds of �vertical� agreements are most likely to raise legal
questions, and therefore prior consultation with IDPF counsel or your counsel
is essential.
Exclusive dealing or requirements contracts. �A contract may provide that one company will
deal exclusively with a specific seller or buyer.� These agreements may preclude the supplier�s
competitors from participation in the business under contract.� The legality of these arrangements depends on
a variety of factors.� In general, a
contract for a short period of time, such as one year or less, does not raise
antitrust concerns.� Longer contracts may
raise problems depending on the market shares involved and the business
justification.
Preferential treatment.�
The sale of the same goods to different customers at different prices
raises a legal question, as do agreements to favor certain customers in
promotional programs.� There may be
available justifications, but advice is required because there are a lot of
technical distinctions.
It is usually safe
to enter into a �most‑favored‑nation� contract, which guarantees
that no other customer will be treated more favorably than the contracting
customer.� On the other hand, there can
be a problem if a contract guarantees that the contracting customer will get
better treatment than anyone else.
Tying arrangements and reciprocity.�
There may be a problem when a company attempts to extend whatever power
it may possess in some segments of its business (the �tying� products) into
other segments of its business (the �tied� products).
On the other
hand, it is not illegal to package the sale of goods or services at a
particularly favorable price � so long as the customer has the realistic choice
of purchasing the individual goods or services separately.
Reciprocity
differs from tying in that the seller of one product or service is the buyer of
the other.� The difference between
illegal reciprocity and legal commercial relationships is difficult and legal
advice is necessary.
����������� Resale
price restrictions.� Unlike other �vertical� contracts, agreements
with customers on the prices that they will charge to their customers are
almost invariably illegal.� Even
agreements which appear to place a ceiling on resale prices can raise serious
antitrust questions.
II.� Standards Setting
The
development of standards can promote competition and economic efficiency by
disseminating product information and by eliminating unnecessary and confusing
variations in products. As a result, joint standards development activity is
normally subject to treatment under the antitrust laws that focuses on whether
or not the activity is reasonably necessary to achieve legitimate
procompetitive ends, and, if so, whether the benefits of the standard outweigh
the costs. The benefits of standard setting are considerable, and the vast
majority of standard development activities, when conducted properly, have
little, if any antitrust risk. Antitrust problems can arise, however, in both
the development of a standard as well as the enforcement of that standard.
The legality of
activities of IDPF and its members is determined by the application of the same
legal standards used to determine the legality of activities of other groups of
persons or firms.� Special problems may
arise, however, from the fact that a standard-setting Forum such as IDPF is,
almost by definition, a combination of competitors or potential
competitors.� Antitrust problems may
arise in several situations, such as in the following illustrative examples:
�
When Forum
members misuse the Forum to facilitate agreements that restrain trade such as
when product standardization has the effect of stabilizing prices;
�
When a Forum
member fails to disclose intellectual property rights in the standards adopted
and then seeks to assert its rights against those who adopt the standard;
�
When a
standards-setting organization adopts a specification that non-members are not
able to meet, and that gives the members of the standards development group a
competitive advantage in manufacturing or marketing; and
�
When the Forum�s
rules and procedures are used to unreasonably exclude some competitors.
III.� Antitrust Guidelines
����������� Any implication of collusion arising
out of IDPF activities must be avoided at all costs. Some ways to do this are
to avoid specific discussion of prices or any of the elements of pricing, such
as pricing policies, discounts, warranties or guarantees, terms or condition of
sale, credit, shipping, or commercial liabilities.� Discussion of general elements of prices,
such as saying that including something may be too expensive or that the benefits
may outweigh the costs, is allowable.�
Above all, do not exclude or control competition.� All parties have a right to be heard under
the principle of openness.
In order to minimize the
antitrust risks associated with standards setting activities, the following
guidelines should be followed regarding both the development and adoption of a
standard as well as the promulgation of that standard:
1. Discussions in all IDPF related meetings, including
Board and Working Group meetings, should relate solely to the legitimate
purposes of IDPF. Care should be taken to avoid even the appearance of
discussing competitively sensitive information, as such discussions may lead to
the inference of an illegal agreement on prohibited topics. To this end, there
should be no discussion, communication or other exchange between members of IDPF
and/or their representatives regarding any of the following categories of
information:
�
Prices or
pricing strategy. This requirement is to be interpreted broadly, to include,
for example, current or projected prices; price levels; pricing procedures or
formulas; price changes or differentials; markups; discounts; allowances; terms
and conditions of sale, including credit terms, warranty provisions, etc.; or
other information that might comprise an element of a product�s price, including
profits, margins or cost data.
�
Production
levels, production capacity, or product inventories;
�
Plans pertaining
to the development, production, distribution, marketing, or introduction dates
of particular products, including proposed marketing territories and potential
customers;
�
Terms on which
any IDPF members will or will not deal with particular competitors, suppliers,
distributors, or customers;
�
Current or
projected cost of procurement, development, or the manufacture of any product
�
Allocation of
customers, markets or territories.
�
Non-public
information regarding market shares.
2. All specifications and standards established by the IDPF
shall be voluntary. Members should not discuss, exchange information, or enter
into agreements that prohibit or restrict any member from establishing or
deploying any other specifications. Members of IDPF will not be required to
adopt any specification developed by the Forum. No efforts will be undertaken
that are intended to prevent the manufacture, sale, or supply of any product or
services not conforming to an adopted specification.
3. IDPF membership should be available to all interested
hardware and software companies, publishers, authors and users of electronic
books and related organizations on reasonable terms.� No applicant for membership, who otherwise
meets the qualifications set forth in the Bylaws of the IDPF, should be
rejected for any anti-competitive purpose or solely for the purpose of denying
such applicant the benefits of membership.
4. Interested parties who potentially may be affected by
the adoption of a standard (including companies that do not belong to IDPF)
shall be permitted [to comment on the development of any standards, through
procedures established in IDPF's policies and procedures.]� IDPF will endeavor to ensure that all
potential competitors that may be affected by a proposed action be given the
opportunity to participate in the development process.
5. All specifications should be based and selected on
their quality, technological attributes and ability to address the need to
establish the desired electronic book systems, applications and products that
will benefit creators of content, makers of reading systems and consumers.
6. IDPF should limit its proposals and evaluations to
matters that facilitate the quality development, production and adoption of
electronic books and their interoperability with related systems.� IDPF should not seek to promote
standardization of sale, license or other commercial terms.�
7. Special care should be taken to ensure that no IDPF
meeting is used as a means of violating the terms of this Policy.� Accordingly, the following practices should
be followed:
�
All meetings
should follow a written agenda. If potential antitrust questions are raised by
an agenda item, such item will be reviewed in advance by counsel.
�
The Board
Secretary should prepare minutes promptly after the meeting, summarizing all
matters discussed. Only minutes approved by the Board and/or counsel should be
distributed (even in preliminary form) and only minutes as approved need be
retained. The purpose of this is to avoid the preservation of misstatements and
ambiguities that may create misperceptions of the meeting. All Board minutes
will be made available to IDPF Members on a timely basis.
�
Informal meetings
should not be held and informal discussions should comply with the standards of
this Policy.
8. Members shall not discuss the degree to which members
will or will not do business with firms that do not participate in IDPF.
9. Any information, materials, or reports of IDPF
available for the use of its members should be made available to non-members on
reasonable terms when non-availability of those materials imposes a significant
economic disadvantage or cost to nonmembers that significantly limits their
ability to compete against IDPF members.�
Once a specification is adopted, it should be made available to members
and non-members on payment of reasonable fees. In addition, related manuals and
services necessary to implement the specification should also be made
available.
10. �Each member,
including any new member, of IDPF shall be supplied with a copy of IDPF's
Antitrust Policy and Guidelines and must agree to abide by such Policy and
Guidelines.
IV.� Conclusion
As the foregoing discussion
sets forth, activities of the IDPF will not include any actions that violate
the law.� The IDPF, in the course of its
activities, shall not agree with, participate in, or give consideration to any
activity, plan, understanding, agreement, or other arrangement that constitutes
a violation of any federal or state antitrust laws, including but not limited
to actions that would (a) raise or stabilize prices or fees, (b) boycott or
refuse to do business with any third parties (other than through the IDPF's
bona fide business contractual arrangements), (c) restrict or interfere with
the exercise of free and independent judgment by the members in the management
or operation of their respective business, or (d) obstruct or interfere with
commerce or free and lawful competition. Members of the IDPFshall conduct all
activities in compliance with the IDPF's Bylaws and this policy on compliance with the antitrust laws.
You should
consult with IDPF staff and/or legal counsel for IDPF when you are in doubt
about the legality of any business activity.�
Even if the Antitrust Policy and Guidelines do not seem to apply
literally, such consultation should occur whenever any proposed activity
strikes you as "unfair," overreaching, or likely to be challenged by
another party.� Until you have received
affirmative clearance for a proposed course of action that has raised doubts in
your mind, do not do it.