Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (other academic)  

DOI： 10.1007/978-981-15-1350-3

Other Link： https://www.springer.com/jp/book/9789811513497

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (international conference proceedings)  

Other Link： https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8965002

Language：Others  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Other Link： https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2879244

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：Others  

© Springer Japan 2016. Leniency has become important for the enforcement of competition law against illegal cartels. When the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law was drafted, the possibility to give lenient treatment to an infringer coming forward with information on the illegal cartel was inscribed in Article 46. In their elaboration of this general leniency provision, NDRC and SAIC created two leniency policies, one of price related and one for non-price related cartels. These leniency policies empowered the enforcement agencies to take decisions almost as they like. Flexible leniency policies, as experience in the United States and the European Union has shown, do not always lead to a favourable outcome in terms of detecting cartels independent from investigations from enforcement agencies. The European experience suggests that a flexible leniency policy will still trigger leniency applications, but that they will always follow the investigations by another enforcement agency. The Japanese experience has taught that this outcome may even not be achieved by a clear and transparent leniency policy. Despite that outcome, the Japanese experience shows that the leniency applications will follow almost directly the foreign investigations. Combining these experiences, the chapter suggests that the Chinese leniency policies will be used. However, due to the uncertainty, the leniency applications will be delayed until it is almost certain that the firm will be punished.

DOI： 10.1007/978-4-431-55787-6_6

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (international conference proceedings)  

Other Link： http://www.immaterieelerfgoed.be/media/ice/workspace/1/2/2/91160_ca_attribute_values_value_blob_12251.pdf

Language：English  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

The proliferation of trade agreements heightens the interest in predatory pricing rules because of their possibility to replace antidumping laws. Successful practices have already been achieved in several regional trade agreements. The current paper focuses on the proposed China–Japan–Korea Free Trade Agreement (CJK FTA) and argues that substitution may be complicated by the presence of two different forms of predatory pricing: dominance-orientated predatory pricing and unfair predatory pricing. Reviewing the rules of the former fortifies the evidence that specific rules of competition law can substitute antidumping law. However, by exploring the rules of the latter, this conclusion is troubled. Unfair predatory pricing rules, as they exist in China, Japan, and Korea, are prone to protectionist abuse. Hence, efforts to harmonize predatory pricing rules so as to abolish antidumping laws would confront more difficulties in the proposed CJK FTA.

Other Link： http://ssjj.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/163.abstract

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Other Link： http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2692450

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

The proliferation of trade agreements heightens the interest in predatory pricing rules because of their possibility to replace antidumping laws. Successful practices have already been achieved in several regional trade agreements. The current paper focuses on the proposed China-Japan-Korea Free Trade Agreement (CJK FTA) and argues that substitution may be complicated by the presence of two different forms of predatory pricing: dominance-orientated predatory pricing and unfair predatory pricing. Reviewing the rules of the former fortifies the evidence that specific rules of competition law can substitute antidumping law. However, by exploring the rules of the latter, this conclusion is troubled. Unfair predatory pricing rules, as they exist in China, Japan, and Korea, are prone to protectionist abuse. Hence, efforts to harmonize predatory pricing rules so as to abolish antidumping laws would confront more difficulties in the proposed CJK FTA.

DOI： 10.1093/ssjj/jyv010

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

The Japanese Antimonopoly Law and its Leniency Program

DOI： 10.15017/1468221

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

Other Link： http://researchbulletin.kyudai.info/?page_id=10

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：Others  

A much-discussed feature of the emerging global legal order has been the proliferation of so-called transnational regulatory networks. These new institutional forms consist of routinized, purposive interaction between diverse actors that share a common sphere of expertise. Such networks are of different types, some involving cooperation between public bodies, others entailing interaction between public, private and quasi-public institutional actors. These networks perform diverse functions: e.g. ‘enforcement networks’, designed to make enforcement more efficient across international borders; ‘information networks’ aimed at promoting information exchange; and, ‘harmonization networks’ setting standards and seeking uniformity in substantive and procedural normative standards.

DOI： 10.1007/978-3-642-41212-7_1

Language：Others  

DOI： 10.4324/9780203795842

Language：Others  

In his contribution The International Competition Network, its Leniency Best Practice and Legitimacy: An Argument for Introducing a Review System, Steven Van Uytsel argues that the International Competition Network, as an example of a transnational regulatory network, should set up a review system of its best practices. Best practices of transnational regulatory networks, are seen as a legitimate tool for influencing the regulatory behavior of their members. These best practices are, at the end, developed by experts in the field based upon the experiences of these experts with their respective legislation or practices. Nevertheless, this chapter shows that this may be problematic if the legislation or the practice with which these experts work exhibits flaws. This is an argument that can be made in the framework of the leniency program and its best practice under the Competition Network. Van Uytsel shows that the best practice finds its origin in the leniency program of two major jurisdictions, the United States and the European Union. The leniency programs of these two jurisdictions have recently been negatively scrutinized by several scholars. Therefore, the question arises on whether best practice is really reflecting a legitimate end-result for convergence. Suggesting that it is not, Van Uytsel argues that a review process could overcome the potential threat to legitimacy in this kind of transnational regulatory network and he also offers some ideas on how this review process could be institutionalized.

DOI： 10.1007/978-3-642-41212-7_10

Language：Others   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Sustainable Development: The Building of Important Link Points between the Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and the WTO

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (international conference proceedings)  

Other Link： http://law.nus.edu.sg/asli/working_paper_series.aspx

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (international conference proceedings)  

Other Link： http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2091519

Language：English  

Other Link： http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2001835

Language：English  

Language：Others  

© Cambridge University Press 2012. Cases involving a large number of potential claimants have long presented difficulties to legal systems designed to accommodate disputes primarily among a small number of parties. Deterred by factors such as the costs of potential court proceedings and the imbalance of power between parties, private actors often abstain from pursuing their rights. Potential defendants who have caused significant but dispersed harm may thus escape from sanctions or liability. As a result, multiple layers of interests, or ‘multilayer interests’, ranging from the interests of private actors in protecting their rights on the one hand to the interests of society as a whole in deterring socially detrimental behaviour on the other, may be left unsatisfied. To remedy this problem, various forms of collective actions have been developed. They range from group actions, in which individual actions are assembled into one procedure; to representative actions, in which an association sues on behalf of a multitude of claimants; to test case procedures, in which claimants sue in order to set a precedent for others. These various forms of collective actions aim to facilitate ‘access to justice’ for private actors, that is, the ability to enforce and protect one's rights through a legal process. In addition to bundling a larger number of fragmented individual interests, they are seen as a mechanism to safeguard the common interests of specific groups of claimants and of society as a whole. Moreover, collective actions are not just a procedural tool but raise a number of political, social and economic issues, for instance, balancing of interests between weaker private actors and bigger players, coordination of collective actions with enforcement efforts by public agencies, cost issues and a possible subordination of the individual for the sake of larger or collective interests.

DOI： 10.1017/CBO9781139109383.002

Language：Others  

© Cambridge University Press 2012. Introduction. Collective actions contribute to access to justice. This has been explained by referring to their capacity to ‘“provide a real remedy” to those in the community who individually have uneconomically viable claims, but where overall, the total amount at issue was significant’. When individuals who share an interest are unified, collective actions will make it easier for them to recover the losses from damage sustained. Bringing together these individuals allows for sharing ‘the huge burden of complicated law suits’, for which various costs may have to be made. These costs will be disproportionate to the damages received by any individual alone, but not to the damages received by the pool of individuals. A similar reasoning has been introduced in the White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules (White Paper), a document in which the European Commission has taken the initiative to introduce several forms of collective action, more specifically on representative actions and opt-in collective actions. Besides aiming at strengthening the enforcement of European competition law, the Commission stated that collective actions would make ‘it easier for consumers and firms that have suffered damage from an infringement of competition law to recover their losses from the infringer.’

DOI： 10.1017/CBO9781139109383.005

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English  

Other Link： http://www.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/steven.pdf

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.15017/15608

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Conceptualizing International Competition Law

Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Conceptualizing International Competition Law

DOI： 10.15017/13847

Repository Public URL： http://hdl.handle.net/2324/13847

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.15017/13154

Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

The proliferation of trade agreements heightens the interest in predatory pricing rules because of their possibility to replace antidumping laws. Successful practices have already been achieved in several regional trade agreements. The current paper focuses on the proposed China-Japan-Korea Free Trade Agreement (CJK FTA) and argues that substitution may be complicated by the presence of two different forms of predatory pricing: dominance-orientated predatory pricing and unfair predatory pricing. Reviewing the rules of the former fortifies the evidence that specific rules of competition law can substitute antidumping law. However, by exploring the rules of the latter, this conclusion is troubled. Unfair predatory pricing rules, as they exist in China, Japan, and Korea, are prone to protectionist abuse. Hence, efforts to harmonize predatory pricing rules so as to abolish antidumping laws would confront more difficulties in the proposed CJK FTA.

DOI： 10.1093/ssjj/jyv010

Language：English  

This timely Research Handbook provides a comprehensive overview and discussion of the substantive competition law provisions of the ASEAN Plus Three region, including Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taking a unique comparative perspective, chapters examine Asian competition laws in relation to the existing laws that served as models for them, analysing how and why they deviate

Responsible for pages：303   Language：English  

Responsible for pages：179-208   Language：English  

Adversarial machine learning has indicated that perturbations to a picture may disable a deep neural network from correctly qualifying the content of a picture. The progressing research has even revealed that the perturbations do not necessarily have to be large in size. This research has been transplanted to traffic signs. The test results were disastrous. For example, a perturbated stop sign was recognized as a speeding sign. Because visualization technology is not able to overcome this problem yet, the question arises who should be liable for accidents caused by this technology. Manufacturers are being pointed at and for that reason it has been claimed that the commercialization of autonomous vehicles may stall. Without autonomous vehicles, the sharing economy may not fully develop either. This chapter shows that there are alternatives for the unpredictable financial burden on the car manufacturers for accidents with autonomous cars. This chapter refers to operator liability, but argues that for reasons of fairness, this is not a viable choice. A more viable choice is a no-fault liability on the manufacturer, as this kind of scheme forces the car manufacturer to be careful but keeps the financial risk predicable. Another option is to be found outside law. Engineers could build infrastructure enabling automation. Such infrastructure may overcome the problems of the visualization technology, but could potentially create a complex web of product and service providers. Legislators should prevent that the victims of an accident, if it were still to occur, would face years in court with the various actors of this complex web in order to receive compensation.

DOI： 10.1007/978-981-15-1350-3_11

Language：English  

Responsible for pages：303   Language：English  

Responsible for pages：2   Language：English  

Responsible for pages：281   Language：English  

Language：English  

Language：English  

This timely Research Handbook provides a comprehensive overview and discussion of the substantive competition law provisions of the ASEAN Plus Three region, including Hong Kong and Taiwan. Taking a unique comparative perspective, chapters examine Asian competition laws in relation to the existing laws that served as models for them, analysing how and why they deviate

Responsible for pages：25   Language：English  

Responsible for pages：2   Language：English  

Responsible for pages：281   Language：English  

Language：English  

Recent studies on adversarial machine learning¹ made Michael Grossman, a Texas-based injury lawyer, skeptical of the viability of autonomous vehicles.² These studies had pointed out that adversarial attacks or perturbations on pictures makes it difficult for the algorithm to correctly classify the content of that picture. If this is applied to traffic sign recognition, simple graffiti on the sign could mislead the algorithm that is analyzing the picture of the traffic sign captured by the camera. ³ Rather than recognizing the traffic sign for what it is, the algorithm could attribute a different meaning to the traffic sign. The consequences could be disastrous, especially if, for example, a stop sign would be read as a speeding sign.⁴ When rational car manufacturers know this defect, they will not proceed with the marketing of autonomous vehicles.

DOI： 10.1109/ICCVE45908.2019.8965002

Responsible for pages：155-182   Language：English  

The use of algorithms in pricing strategies has received special attention among competition law scholars. There is an increasing number of scholars who argue that the pricing algorithms, facilitated by increased access to Big Data, could move in the direction of collusive price setting. Though this claim is being made, there are various responses. On the one hand, scholars point out that current artificial intelligence is not yet well-developed to trigger that result. On the other hand, scholars argue that algorithms may have other pricing results rather than collusion. Despite the uncertainty that collusive price could be the result of the use of pricing algorithms, a plethora of scholars are developing views on how to deal with collusive price setting caused by algorithms. The most obvious choice is to work with the legal instruments currently available. Beyond this choice, scholars also suggest constructing a new rule of reason. This rule would allow us to judge whether an algorithm could be used or not. Other scholars focus on developing a test environment. Still other scholars seek solutions outside competition law and elaborate on how privacy regulation or transparency reducing regulation could counteract a collusive outcome. Besides looking at law, there are also scholars arguing that technology will allow us to respond to the excesses of pricing algorithms. It is the purpose of this chapter to give a detailed overview of this debate on algorithms, price setting and competition law.

DOI： 10.1007/978-981-13-2874-9_7

Language：English  

Language：English  

Leniency has become important for the enforcement of competition law against illegal cartels. When the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law was drafted, the possibility to give lenient treatment to an infringer coming forward with information on the illegal cartel was inscribed in Article 46. In their elaboration of this general leniency provision, NDRC and SAIC created two leniency policies, one of price related and one for non-price related cartels. These leniency policies empowered the enforcement agencies to take decisions almost as they like. Flexible leniency policies, as experience in the United States and the European Union has shown, do not always lead to a favourable outcome in terms of detecting cartels independent from investigations from enforcement agencies. The European experience suggests that a flexible leniency policy will still trigger leniency applications, but that they will always follow the investigations by another enforcement agency. The Japanese experience has taught that this outcome may even not be achieved by a clear and transparent leniency policy. Despite that outcome, the Japanese experience shows that the leniency applications will follow almost directly the foreign investigations. Combining these experiences, the chapter suggests that the Chinese leniency policies will be used. However, due to the uncertainty, the leniency applications will be delayed until it is almost certain that the firm will be punished.

DOI： 10.1007/978-4-431-55787-6_6

Language：English  

Responsible for pages：185-227   Language：English  

In his contribution The International Competition Network, its Leniency Best Practice and Legitimacy: An Argument for Introducing a Review System, Steven Van Uytsel argues that the International Competition Network, as an example of a transnational regulatory network, should set up a review system of its best practices. Best practices of transnational regulatory networks, are seen as a legitimate tool for influencing the regulatory behavior of their members. These best practices are, at the end, developed by experts in the field based upon the experiences of these experts with their respective legislation or practices. Nevertheless, this chapter shows that this may be problematic if the legislation or the practice with which these experts work exhibits flaws. This is an argument that can be made in the framework of the leniency program and its best practice under the Competition Network. Van Uytsel shows that the best practice finds its origin in the leniency program of two major jurisdictions, the United States and the European Union. The leniency programs of these two jurisdictions have recently been negatively scrutinized by several scholars. Therefore, the question arises on whether best practice is really reflecting a legitimate end-result for convergence. Suggesting that it is not, Van Uytsel argues that a review process could overcome the potential threat to legitimacy in this kind of transnational regulatory network and he also offers some ideas on how this review process could be institutionalized.

DOI： 10.1007/978-3-642-41212-7_10

Responsible for pages：313   Language：English   Book type：Scholarly book

Responsible for pages：3-9   Language：English  

A much-discussed feature of the emerging global legal order has been the proliferation of so-called transnational regulatory networks. These new institutional forms consist of routinized, purposive interaction between diverse actors that share a common sphere of expertise. Such networks are of different types, some involving cooperation between public bodies, others entailing interaction between public, private and quasi-public institutional actors. These networks perform diverse functions: e.g. ‘enforcement networks’, designed to make enforcement more efficient across international borders; ‘information networks’ aimed at promoting information exchange; and, ‘harmonization networks’ setting standards and seeking uniformity in substantive and procedural normative standards.

DOI： 10.1007/978-3-642-41212-7_1

Language：English  

This book brings together a unique range of case studies focusing on networks in the context of business regulation. The case studies form the basis for an interdisciplinary dialogue on the meaning, value and the limits of the 'network concept' as a tool for understanding and critically evaluating the emergent transnational legal order.

DOI： 10.1007/978-3-642-41212-7

Responsible for pages：v   Language：English  

DOI： 10.1007/978-3-642-41212-7

Responsible for pages：40-53   Language：English  

DOI： 10.4324/9780203795842

Responsible for pages：The UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: A Tale of Fragmentation in International Law   Language：English   Book type：Scholarly book

Other Link： http://www.intersentia.be/searchDetail.aspx?back=reeks&reeksCode=IL&bookid=101409&author=Toshiyuki%20Kono,%20Steven%20Van%20Uytsel&title=The%20UNESCO%20Convention%20on%20the%20Diversity%20of%20Cultural%20Expressions

Repository Public URL： http://hdl.handle.net/2324/1001501524

Responsible for pages：Collective Actions: Enhancing Access to Justice and Reconciling Multilayer Interests?   Language：English   Book type：Scholarly book

Other Link： http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9781107021549

Repository Public URL： http://hdl.handle.net/2324/1001483572

Responsible for pages：57-92   Language：English  

Introduction. Collective actions contribute to access to justice. This has been explained by referring to their capacity to ‘“provide a real remedy” to those in the community who individually have uneconomically viable claims, but where overall, the total amount at issue was significant’. When individuals who share an interest are unified, collective actions will make it easier for them to recover the losses from damage sustained. Bringing together these individuals allows for sharing ‘the huge burden of complicated law suits’, for which various costs may have to be made. These costs will be disproportionate to the damages received by any individual alone, but not to the damages received by the pool of individuals. A similar reasoning has been introduced in the White Paper on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules (White Paper), a document in which the European Commission has taken the initiative to introduce several forms of collective action, more specifically on representative actions and opt-in collective actions. Besides aiming at strengthening the enforcement of European competition law, the Commission stated that collective actions would make ‘it easier for consumers and firms that have suffered damage from an infringement of competition law to recover their losses from the infringer.’

DOI： 10.1017/CBO9781139109383.005

Responsible for pages：1-20   Language：English  

Cases involving a large number of potential claimants have long presented difficulties to legal systems designed to accommodate disputes primarily among a small number of parties. Deterred by factors such as the costs of potential court proceedings and the imbalance of power between parties, private actors often abstain from pursuing their rights. Potential defendants who have caused significant but dispersed harm may thus escape from sanctions or liability. As a result, multiple layers of interests, or ‘multilayer interests’, ranging from the interests of private actors in protecting their rights on the one hand to the interests of society as a whole in deterring socially detrimental behaviour on the other, may be left unsatisfied. To remedy this problem, various forms of collective actions have been developed. They range from group actions, in which individual actions are assembled into one procedure; to representative actions, in which an association sues on behalf of a multitude of claimants; to test case procedures, in which claimants sue in order to set a precedent for others. These various forms of collective actions aim to facilitate ‘access to justice’ for private actors, that is, the ability to enforce and protect one's rights through a legal process. In addition to bundling a larger number of fragmented individual interests, they are seen as a mechanism to safeguard the common interests of specific groups of claimants and of society as a whole. Moreover, collective actions are not just a procedural tool but raise a number of political, social and economic issues, for instance, balancing of interests between weaker private actors and bigger players, coordination of collective actions with enforcement efforts by public agencies, cost issues and a possible subordination of the individual for the sake of larger or collective interests.

DOI： 10.1017/CBO9781139109383.002

Language：English  

This volume of essays draws together research on different types of collective actions: group actions, representative actions, test case procedures, derivative actions and class actions. The main focus is on how these actions can enhance access to justice and on how to balance the interests of private actors in protecting their rights with the interests of society as a whole. Rather than focusing on collective actions only as a procedural device per se, the contributors to this book also examine how these mechanisms relate to their broader social context. Bringing together a broad range of scholarship from the areas of competition, consumer, environmental, company and securities law, the book includes contributions from Asian, European and North American scholars and therefore expands the scope of the traditional European and/or American debate.

DOI： 10.1017/CBO9781139109383

Language：English  

Responsible for pages：241-275   Language：English  

DOI： 10.4324/9780203151129

Language：English  

Responsible for pages：publsihed in "Intangible Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Law: Communities, Cultural Diversity and Sustainable Development (Toshiyuki Kono ed.) 113-141   Language：English   Book type：Scholarly book

Repository Public URL： http://hdl.handle.net/2324/1001373199

Responsible for pages：published in "Intangible Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property Law: Communities, Cultural Diversity and Sustainable Development"(Toshiyuki Kono ed.) 43-50   Language：English   Book type：Scholarly book

Repository Public URL： http://hdl.handle.net/2324/1001373199

Language：English  

Event date： 2022.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：virtual   Country：Czech Republic  

Event date： 2022.3

Language：English   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：Online   Country：Singapore  

Event date： 2021.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：Virtual (Kobe University)   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2021.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：virtual (Jakarta)   Country：Indonesia  

Event date： 2021.9

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：virtual   Country：Singapore  

Event date： 2021.7

Language：English   Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Virtual   Country：China  

Event date： 2021.6

Language：English   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：virtual (Porto)   Country：Portugal  

Event date： 2021.6

Language：Japanese  

Venue：virtual (Porto)   Country：Portugal  

Event date： 2021.2

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：University of Korea (Virtual)   Country：Korea, Republic of  

Event date： 2020.7 - 2021.7

Language：English   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：Virtual   Country：Australia  

Event date： 2020.1

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：University of Valencia (Spain)   Country：Spain  

Event date： 2019.2

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2018.11 - 2019.11

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Other Link： https://www.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/topics/view/371

Event date： 2018.11 - 2019.11

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Other Link： https://www.kyushu-u.ac.jp/en/topics/view/371

Event date： 2018.11 - 2019.11

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Messe Congres Graz (Austria)   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2018.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2018.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2018.9 - 2019.9

Language：English   Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Fukuoka Bar Association   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2018.9 - 2019.9

Language：English   Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2018.7

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2017.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2017.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Chaing Rai / Mae Fah Luang University   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2017.10

Language：English  

Venue：Judicial Training Institute - Bangkok   Country：Thailand  

Event date： 2017.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Judicial Training Institute - Bangkok   Country：Thailand  

Event date： 2017.10

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Mae Fah Luang University   Country：Thailand  

Event date： 2017.6

Language：English   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：Stockholm University   Country：Japan  

The Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) has generally been reserved in applying its Act on Prohibition of Private Monopolization and Maintenance of Fair Trade (Antimonopoly Law or AML) to new developments in the market. It should come as no surprise that there is barely any reference to enforcement action of the JFTC in the debate on the digital economy and competition law. This is not to say that the JFTC is ignorant to the developments in the digital economy. In his New Year’s message of 2016, JFTC Chairman Kazuyuki Sugimoto recognized the change the digital economy has brought to business models and called for careful consideration on how competition policy should be shaped towards these business models. Any direction of how the policy should look like is not given in the message. The JFTC has also commissioned a study on data and competition policy. By limiting the scope of the study, it goes without saying that the recommendations made and conclusions drawn are not easily transferable to the whole digital economy.
The digital economy has further been studied by the Cross-sectional System Study Group for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Study Group). This Study Group has been working under the auspices of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). The JFTC has participated as an observer. Despite the generally descriptive nature of the report, the Study Group has made an interesting normative claim regarding the intervention of competition law in the digital economy. Without making any reference to a specific case, the Study Group has opined that “[i]n order to maintain a fair competitive environment in the ever-changing digital market, it is important to not only correct the wrongs of business operators who conflict with the Act [the Antimonopoly Law] but also provide an environment where potential rivals to existing business operators can grow before the market is exposed to an unfair competition.”
This normative claim seems to collide with an administrative order by the JFTC. In 2011, the JFTC issued a cease and desist order against DeNA Co., Ltd. (DeNA). This Chapter will argue that the intervention of the JFTC in this case was in a market still in full expansion. The main argument for this statement is that the intervention wasbe done in a severely contestable market. In secondary order, the Chapter will indicate that such an intervention has been made possible due to the conceptualization of Japan’s competition law. Japan has a dual structure to declare conduct unlawful. Unreasonable restraints of trade (horizontal agreements) and private monopolization (unilateral exclusionary conduct) is dealt with in Article 3 of the AML. Article 19 AML, prohibiting unfair trade practices, and is focused on the lawfulness of vertical agreements and unilateral exclusionary conduct. The difference between these two articles is that the latter applies only to conduct that intends to impede competition. In secondary order, the Chapter argues that if proactive competition law enforcement, as suggested by the Study Group, is the choice of the Japanese legislator, the scholarly calls for abolishing Article 19 AML has to be disregarded.

Event date： 2017.5

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：The University of the Philippines   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2017.2

Language：English  

Venue：The University of Antwerp   Country：Belgium  

Het is tien jaar geleden dat UNESCO haar werk beëindigde aan een internationaal bindend instrument in
verband met de diversiteit van cultuuruitingen (of culturele expressies). De Conventie voor de
bescherming en promotie van de diversiteit van cultuuruitingen (hierna de 2005 Conventie) is er
gekomen twee jaar nadat UNESCO de Conventie voor de borging van immaterieel erfgoed had
aangenomen (hierna de 2003 Conventie). Beide conventies hebben gemeen dat ze aan culturele
diversiteit worden gelinkt.
De aanzet tot de 2005 Conventie, zo kunnen we afleiden uit de Resolutie 32C34 van de Algemene
Vergadering van UNESCO, was het garanderen in een internationaal bindend instrument van culturele
diversiteit en met name van de diversiteit van culturele inhoud en artistieke uitdrukkingen (later,
omwille van de eenvoud, werd dit veranderd in cultuuruitingen). Door het beperken van de
‘beschermingsopdracht’ tot culturele uitdrukkingen, heeft men voorkomen dat de Conventie zich zou
bezighouden met culturele diversiteit in het algemeen (alle vormen van erfgoed, mensenrechten,
culturele ontwikkeling, auteursrecht, etc.). Culturele diversiteit is ook vaak aangehaald in de context
van de 2003 Conventie.
De tweede overweging van de preambule van de 2003 Conventie stelt dat immaterieel cultureel erfgoed
belangrijk is als een drijfkracht van culturele diversiteit. De 2003 Conventie is niet de enige plaats waar
men een statement kan vinden over het belang van immaterieel cultureel erfgoed voor culturele
diversiteit. In verschillende UNESCO documenten staat te lezen dat “cultural diversity, as revealed
through the intangible heritage”, “intangible cultural heritage as a mirror of cultural diversity” of
“intangible cultural heritage (…) concretely embod[ying] cultural diversity.”
Niettegenstaande de link van beide conventies met culturele diversiteit, merkt Janet Blake op dat de
relatie tussen de 2005 Conventie en de 2003 Conventie verre van duidelijk is. Ze roept de organen van
beide conventies zelfs op om klaarheid te scheppen over hoe beide conventies zich tot elkaar kunnen
verhouden. Zonder de bedoeling te hebben volledige klaarheid te brengen in de relatie tussen beide
conventies, zou ik met deze lezing enkele ideeën naar voor willen brengen over hoe de verhoudingen
tussen beide conventies op juridisch technisch vlak kan benaderd worden.
Om die verhouding toe te lichten zullen we eerst stilstaan bij de achtergrond van de twee conventies.
Daarna is het van belang om aan te tonen dat beide conventies een gemeenschappelijk onderwerp en
doel hebben. Is dit niet aanwezig, dan zal de interactie tussen beide conventies gelimiteerd zijn tot
interpretatie van concepten die beide conventies gemeen hebben. Indien het onderwerp en doel
gemeenschappelijk is, kan er ook een interactie zijn operationeel vlak. Na te hebben vastgesteld dat
beide conventies een gemeenschappelijk onderwerp en doel hebben, zullen we de juridische
kwalificatie bekijken van beide conventies. Dit is van belang om te zien of beide conventies in conflict
kunnen komen met elkaar. Na deze vaststellingen, zullen we overgaan tot het bekijken van de
mogelijke interactie tussen beide conventies op operationeel vlak en op het gebied van interpretatie.
Op operationeel vlak zal er een onderscheid worden gemaakt tussen complementaire en
contradictorische bepalingen. Op het gebied van interpretatie zullen we kijken wat het gevolg zou zijn
van een éénrichtingsinterpretatie en van een wederzijdse interpretatiemogelijkheid.

Event date： 2016.12

Language：English   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：ACF at the United Conference Centre  

Since his rise to power, Prime Minister Abe has undertaken several initiatives to (re)vitalize the Japanese economy. One of the initiatives is to divide up the country in special economic zones, assigning each of them with a different purpose. Fukuoka, the city in which the author’s university is based, has been designated as the National Strategic Special Zone for Global Startups & Job Creation. Soichiro Takashima, the young and driven mayor of Fukuoka, has specified that particularly technology-driven startups would be welcomed.
The general idea of a special economic zone is that it allows for the creation of new regulatory schemes and financing methods and so create tests beds for the rest of the country. Yet, the newly establishing ecosystem cannot necessarily deviate from all the national regulations that may be relevant for the purpose that has been attributed to a special economic zone. One of the national regulations that Mr. Takashima will not be able to bend is the Japanese Antimonopoly Law.
Competition law can be of importance for innovating startups. PaRR has reported that Facebook is being sued by a startup for exclusionary practices, such as tying. Uber is being accused of organizing fixing prices among independent drivers by obliging them to use a price setting algorithm. In other words, startups can either be sabotaged by established players who do not like the business or technology innovations or can be stopped or slowed because the business practice is not aligned with the law.

The innovating startups in Japan may face, among others, the above-described situations. Two questions arise. First, will the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) actively engage in applying the Antimonopoly Law to law infringing startups? Second, to what extent does the Antimonopoly Law offer a protective shield for the startups towards abusive and exclusionary behavior of the incumbent firms? The paper intends to draw conclusions on the intervention rate of JFTC in general, but in the technology driven sector in particular, in order to make predictions about the former. Past cases interpreting the antimonopoly legislation and recently issued guidelines will shed a light on the latter.
The prediction is that the innovative startups do have to expect neither ‘swift’ interventions of the JFTC nor ‘full’ protection. The reason for this statement is that not all anti-competitive behavior is well-delineated in the JFTC’s case law. Further, the heavy reliance of the JFTC on unfair trade practices may create unpredictable outcomes for the startups, in which incumbent firms would be able to act against startups for reasons not possible in other jurisdictions.

Event date： 2016.2 - 2016.3

Language：English   Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Kyushu University   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2015.12

Language：English   Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：Toyama   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2015.11 - 2015.12

Language：English  

Venue：Hong Kong Polytech University  

Event date： 2015.5

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Taiwan National University   Country：Taiwan, Province of China  

Japan has long been struggling with positioning its economic policy towards competition law. Rather than aiming for a strong enforcement of competition law, Japanese ministries made several efforts to hollow out the substantive law provisions. Exemptions were adopted, penalties were kept low, and the enforcement agency was being controlled by the ministries favoring industrial policies. Foreign pressure and an economic downturn forced Japan to reconsider its stance towards competition law. Having had a long history of lax enforcement, this shift will, without any doubt, be a challenge to Japan. The business community has to be familiarized with the idea that competition law should be complied with.

Japan could do so by reverting to a long standing theory on compliance, which holds that behavior is most effectively influenced by a high likelihood of detection and punishment and the presence of severe sanctions. This argument would be welcomed by traditional competition law scholars. However, Japanese legislator is not only focusing on increasing the likelihood of detection and punishment or imposing higher sanctions. In a recent amendment to the Japanese competition law (2013), the legislator reconsidered its enforcement system. Important changes were made to the hearing procedures within the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) and the procedure for appealing the FTC’s decisions.

The legislator’s approach could fit within an alternative view on compliance, which holds that multiple motivations drive compliance. One of the motivations is procedural fairness. The aim of this paper is to investigate whether the changes to the procedural setting in the Japanese competition law could contribute to an increased commitment to adhere to the law. In other words, it will be investigated whether these changes allow the relevant authorities to be procedurally fair.

Other Link： http://law.nus.edu.sg/asli/12th_asli_conf/call_for_papers.html

Event date： 2015.3

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：National University of Singapore   Country：Singapore  

In its aspiration to revamp the agricultural industry, the Abe Cabinet conceded to a request of the agricultural lobby to adopt a law regulating geographical indications (GIs). On June 25, 2014, the Japanese Parliament promulgated the Act for the Protection of the Names of Designated Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Products and Foodstuffs (GI Act). As the name of the law indicates, the GI Act regulates geographical indication for agricultural products.By denominating agricultural products with a GI, there is a hope that these products can secure a better valued access to the national and international market. A better valued market access is not the only reason for instigating a GI regime. There are more and more claims that the products eligible for registration as GI could be bearers of a rich cultural heritage. Thus, the argument goes, facilitating market access for the GI-denominated products could indirectly guarantee the safeguarding of the underlying heritage. Whether the safeguarding of the underlying heritage is possible in a GI framework depends on the compatibility of a GI legal framework with the internationally accepted framework for the safeguarding of the heritage: the 2003 UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH Convention).The argument in this paper is that the ICH Convention is a framework convention, leaving much discretion to its member states to fulfill their duty of setting up a national legal framework for safeguarding ICH. Nothing in the ICH Convention prevents that such a national legal framework entails intellectual property law instruments. There is thus an opening for using GIs as a way to safeguard ICH. The only obstacle, however, would be a fundamental difference between the systems of GIs and ICH. In this respect, several scholars have pointed to the concept of authenticity that is underlying GIs. This obstacle is not insurmountable. It all depends on how the concept will be given content. The paper will analyze the GI Act against the backdrop of safeguarding ICH. This analysis will draw the following conclusions. First, seen the already extensive interpretation of agricultural products, it may be a missed opportunity not to extend the GI regime to other non-agricultural products and so encompass as much ICH as possible. Second, in terms of authenticity, the GI Act leaves a lot of flexibility. In order not to end up in a missed opportunity in this respect, the paper argues that much will depend on how the producers’ organizations will implement the GI Act. One should avoid standardization, top-down decision making and be open for an evolution in the production processes.

Other Link： http://law.nus.edu.sg/pdfs/cals/events/ng-loycalboli_gictdcap_program.pdf

Event date： 2014.5

Language：English  

Country：Malaysia  

Event date： 2014.2

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Country：Japan  

Event date： 2014.2

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Country：Japan  

Event date： 2013.12

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Hong Kong Polytech University  

Event date： 2013.8

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：National University of Singapore   Country：Singapore  

Event date： 2012.9

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Chulalongkorn University   Country：Thailand  

Event date： 2012.7

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Country：Singapore  

Event date： 2012.3

Presentation type：Oral presentation (invited, special)  

Country：Germany  

Event date： 2011.8

Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Institutions and Economics International Conference on Institutions, Law, and Economic Development   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2011.2

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：Nishijin Plaza   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2010.12

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：Renmin University - Beijing   Country：China  

Event date： 2010.8

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：University of International Business and Economics   Country：China  

Event date： 2009.3

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Fukuoka   Country：Japan  

Event date： 2009.3

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Hanoi   Country：Viet Nam  

Event date： 2008.12

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Venue：Yangon   Country：Myanmar  

Event date： 2007.8

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Venue：Nishijin Plaza   Country：Japan  

Presentation type：Oral presentation (invited, special)  

Country：Singapore  

Language：English  

Country：Japan  

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Country：Japan  

Technology driven sectors have seen the growing importance of standards. These standards could be seen as technical specifications seeking a common design for a product or a process. By creating a common platform, the standard allows multiple producers to offer competing and complementary products. These standards expand thus the consumer choice and facilitate the convenience for users.

It may be that some of these standards depend on the invention by a particular firm. This firm will most likely have taken a patent on this invention. These patents will be essential for the effective implementation of the standard and are therefore called standard-essential patent. Any other firm willing to enter the product market for which the standard is applicable will have to obtain a license from the standard-essential patent holder. The essentiality of the patent for the standard will allow the patent holder to ‘royal’ compensation for these patents and so create a patent-hold-up.

The potential of claiming unreasonably high royalties makes it essential for standard setting organizations to check the existence of standard-essential patents when deciding on a new standard. Once a standard has been adopted, switching to an alternative technology may not be feasible. This will further increase the bargaining power of the holder of a standard-essential patent. This potentially lucrative perspective may induce patent holders to hide the existence of patents essential to a standard and only fully reveal it after the standard has been adopted. This kind of patent ambush may thus aggregate the patent hold-up that could be the result of standard-essential patents.

The question is to what extent competition law could react towards this kind of behavior in relation to this specific intellectual property right. This paper gives an overview of what the European Commission has decided so far in relation to the standard-essential patents and how competition law could help in avoiding the hold-up or punish in case of a patent ambush.

Other Link： http://www.euij-kyushu.com/jp/Events/20150612_RIETI-Seminiar.pdf

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Country：Korea, Republic of  

Language：English  

A comparative US and EU perspective on the Japanese Antimonopoly Law's leniency program

DOI： 10.15017/13154

Type：Peer review 

Number of peer-reviewed articles in foreign language journals：1

Type：Peer review 

Number of peer-reviewed articles in foreign language journals：1

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Number of participants：130

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Number of participants：40

Type：Scientific advice/Review 

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Peer review 

Number of peer-reviewed articles in foreign language journals：1

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Number of participants：128

Type：Academic society, research group, etc. 

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Number of participants：40

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Type：Competition, symposium, etc. 

Type：Competition, symposium, etc.