Competition Commission of India (CCI) chairperson Ashok Chawla on Friday said the fair trade watchdog will give a final decision on its probe against realty firm Jaypee Greens for alleged violation of the competition norms in a housing project in Greater Noida in the next two to three weeks.
Chawla, while inaugurating the third international conference on 'Interface between intellectual property and competition law,' organised by ASSOCHAM, also informed that CCI's investigation against app-based taxi-service provider Ola Cabs is in a preliminary stage.
"There is an investigation going with respect to Bangalore city services that is in a preliminary stage, so we will see and if there is problem in other cities and if other informations come to us certainly we will look into that," he said.
In his response to a query on CCI's participation in ASSOCHAM's conference, Chawla said, "I see no conflict of interest in attending an industry function and giving the key note address for a day-long seminar."
"I think it is entirely irrational to talk of conflict of interest even if there is some company I am not aware of, a company which is probably one of the sponsors and is otherwise under investigation before us because this is not a platform of private companies but a platform of one of the major national chambers of commerce and advocacy is a statutory mandate which we have to follow and we are fulfilling it," he added.
Also Read
Highlighting that innovation is key to job creation and sustainable economic growth, Chawla said: "We must create an environment where businesses put innovation at the centre of their strategies for the future."
He also said that intellectual property (IP) should serve its main purpose of encouraging innovation. "We do not intend to meddle in disputes that are purely of an intellectual property nature, however, whenever innovation is threatened by an anticompetitive merger or conduct, we will intervene to ensure that intellectual property is not misused for anti-competitive purposes and that markets remain open."
"Our intervention will remain cautious and balanced so that enterprises in this dynamic knowledge sectors maintain their incentive to innovate," said the CCI chairman.
"We will look at dynamic nature of competition as well as take into account special characteristics of high-tech markets such as network effects, switching costs, low marginal costs, tipping etc.," he added.
"We have taken the position that non-compete obligations should cover only products, either being manufactured or under development, and be reasonable in respect of duration," said Mr Chawla.
"The objective is to ensure that they do not adversely affect innovation and introduction of better or new products," he added.
On various challenges before the CCI in terms of interface of technological issues and competition enforcement, he said it is important to strike a careful balance so as not to undermine incentives to innovate.
Chawla further said that same competition principles apply to IP as to other forms of property, and IP licensing cannot be free from competition scrutiny.
"Competition authorities surely need to take action where a licensing agreement harms competition," he said.
"However, because licensing has the potential to enhance competition, most licensing arrangements would need to be evaluated under a rule of reason framework," he added.
The CCI chairman further said the problems of marking exact boundaries of intellectual property may create analytical difficulties.
Understanding of differences between static and dynamic efficiencies is critical to understanding the types of harms that antitrust enforcement is meant to prevent, he added.
Talking about merger review, Chawla said that it is vital to promotion of innovation, especially by preserving competitive market structures.
"We need to see that markets remain truly open to innovative entrants and M&A does not reduce the incentive of firms to innovate or freeze investment decisions that would lead to enhanced innovation," he added.
He also said that non-compete clause in merger review cases involving IPRs is becoming a concern.
