So yesterday afternoon, we finally realised a dream when we came to the end of what has been a long, winding road. A journey that has had its ups and downs, its good times and bad times, but a journey that has probably made most of us better and more mature men and women.
When we entered the law course the best part of three years ago, we all were thrown in at the deep end, right into the unknown. Some of us didn't even know each other. However, we all knew that there were tough times that did lie ahead, but obviously, we didn't know how tough they would be until we encountered them ourselves. "Obligations" was merely a subject we had heard about, and occasionally told about how difficult a subject it could indeed be. But as first years, our worry was not about Obligations; it was about the likes of Constitutional Law, Roman Law and Philosophy of Law - all 'failing subjects' back in the day, and probably still no different now. That tag was indeed justified - by the end of first year, a course that initially started out with 185 prospective lawyers had whittled down to around 115 by the start of second year. The decrease was just extraordinary. Some couldn't handle the pressures that the course presented and called it a day, others decided to seek pastures new either abroad or in another course, and others, unfortunately, just failed and didn't make it. Perhaps they tried again and succeeded; perhaps they tried again and once again, sadly, didn't pass.
What I found strikingly accurate is that the advice that people who had passed through the course before us would present. A good friend of mine told me that Family Law aside, second year would be a breeze and indeed, nearly everyone would get through it with flying colours, which was nothing less than the truth. Indeed, Family Law was one of those subjects, alongside Roman Law and Obligations this year, which completely did not merit the accreditation given to it. When you have tons of information piled up that necessitates hours on end of studying for the end of year exam, giving such subjects a value of 6, 6 and 8 credits respectively is criminal. Moreover, the swearing that goes on when indeed studying away for these subjects probably merits at least 2 credits in each case! Which brings me to a point aside - what is it with Civil Law exams being so underrated?
And this brings me to third year. Second years who might read this please note, this one is for you in particular. Everyone knows that this is the year where you go to hell and beyond when you enter the course, but yet again, on a personal level, I thought this was all the hype, at least initially. How wrong I was. The content that had to be studied was probably around four times the amount we had in second year - no joke - with Obligations constituting the biggest chunk in this increase of material. Indeed, while we were all encouraged to work and study throughout the year, never before had I imagined that I had to start studying things properly so well in advance in my life. Indeed, had I not done the wise thing, I think it would be safe to say that I'd be in a hell of a lot more trouble than I probably am at the moment! Each subject in third year is demanding beyond belief - even Commercial Law, for example, sees a massive increase in the amount of material when comparing it to what was done in second year (and please note, both years are awarded the same accreditation!!). Each subject demands a particular amount of time and attention as otherwise, one might find it very difficult to get through. On a personal level yet again, though, having had to encounter the above with the constant chasing of bricks and absurd noises coming out of the construction site next door for the past year or so, I feel I'm prepared for anything that might be thrown my way in the future!
So that's that, and hopefully, following yesterday's horror show, LL.B. is over. It's been a long journey, but it's been a colourful one. It's a been tough but together, we've managed to get through it. So people like Stef, Carla, Mickey, Gerd, Dalli, Stefan, Andrew, Hannah, Kurt, Nicola, Felicity, Krista (both of you), Emma, David, Clement... the list goes on, but last and definitely not least, of course, I'd have to mention you, Mark; thank you for the memories and thank you for helping me get through it just as much as, I hope, I helped you get through as well.
We'll hopefully all see each other in LL.D... will it be the beginning of a new journey together?
God Bless You all!
Matti
Showing posts with label Commercial Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commercial Law. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Friday, December 4, 2009
Let's GO, Melita!
Finally, something actually worthwhile that I can write about.
I have to admit, when reading the recent news that Melita had lost the rights to transmit Barclays Premier League matches from season 2010/11 through to season 2012/13 to GO plc, I was extremely shocked. To say the least. This means that a large chunk of sporting action that I see on the weekends would indeed be gone from my very eyes, provided that I remain with Melita for the next three odd years. Which, judging by the way how it's going downhill, I don't think will really be the case, but anyway. Anyhow, as a response to this, Melita claimed that they are still the leaders in providing sports to local households, and they also still retained exclusive rights in items such as the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League, Serie A and the Bundesliga.
So far, all is fine and dandy. It was the typical response that I expected from Melita, one which obviously tried to make them look in as little a bad light as possible while, at the same time, promoting the programmes which they show. Of course, they did forget to mention that Saturday afternoons will probably be spent, after August 2010, with replays of old Italian and German football matches being shown on their (now excessive) eight different channels dedicated to sport; these interspersed with everyone's favourite show, a bout of horse racing from Sweden. Naturally, I'm hoping you're noting the sarcastic tone here. Furthermore, they also conveniently forgot to tell us customers that the price of the sports package will probably still be going up due to some fabricated administrative cost, or something of the sort. In brief, Melita will indeed become more pathetic than they already are come the end of Summer 2010.
However, while thinking over it, I ended up by coming to another conclusion vis-a-vis what is happening with GO and Melita. Perhaps it is a bit far-fetched, but I think it's worth stating it nonetheless. I noticed a trend in Melita's declining sporting list year after year: in 2007, GO announced that they would be transmitting Wimbledon from 2008 onwards; in 2008, GO announced that they had managed to obtain the exclusive rights to transmit Formula 1 from 2009 onwards; and now, in 2009 GO announced that they will be transmitting the Premier League from 2010. (Of course, Melita's prices never decreased despite the fact that two major sporting events were not transmitted over the last two years; and I fully expect this trend to continue come 2010, hence the reasoning for my logic above). Coincidence? I think not.
My belief is that both Melita and GO are currently in breach of the law. To be more specific, I think that these two companies are breaching Articles 5 and 9 of the Competition Act (in Malta), or Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, the ex-EC Treaty), i.e. there is collusion going on between both Melita and GO with regard their television services, meaning that there is the notion of market distortion in this sector and abuse of a dominant position. I will start with the latter point though, as this seems to be easier to tackle.
For a start, with regards abuse of a dominant position, there must be two criteria satisfied; i.e. dominant position in the relevant market and abuse. It can clearly be argued that combined, both Melita and GO have got a majority share in the television market, especially with regard to the relevant product market (sporting events), as both providers show pretty much everything, be it football, Formula 1 or wrestling. The geographical and temporal markets do not have any relevance in this circumstance. Secondary to this, there must be abuse. Now, while this is not a notion that us students have exactly tackled just yet, I can understand that there is the potential for the constant switching of services from one provider to another to be classified as abuse. Both providers may indeed be doing this to simultaneously increase their shares in the market relating to sporting events, and hence increase clientele and profits accordingly. If this is proven, and of course, it is obviously much more difficult to do so other than just stating that which I am currently stating, then there already is a breach of Article 9 of the Competition Act or Article 102 of the TFEU.
This brings me to my second point. Is there collusion going on between Melita and GO, which are, for the purposes of the law, classified as two undertakings? If I had to apply my theory, as I briefly outlined in bold above, then one could argue that there is a horizontal agreement between both television providers. However, such a horizontal agreement would have to be proven by means of oral or written communication; and quite frankly, I doubt both companies would do something as stupid and as ridiculous as that; and is hence extremely difficult to prove. Prima facie, one might also argue that this could fall under the heading of a concerted practice between undertakings, but upon further examination of this notion, one must realise and understand that this is "a form of coordination between undertakings which, without having reached the stage where an agreement properly so called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes practical cooperation between them for the risks of competition". Therefore, one cannot classify that happening between both companies as such a concerted practice, for the purposes of Competition Law.
The second part of Article 5(1) speaks of market distortion. The law states that "any agreement between undertakings... having the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition" is prohibited. It is necessary to look at the conjunction 'or' over here, as this means that not both the object and effect must be proven, but if one is proven, then it is enough. One could seriously argue that both undertakings' actions are currently having the desired effect. But do these actions fall under the exceptions to the articles in question? After analysing the law accordingly, I cannot see how the exceptions as outlined in Article 5(3) or 101(3) apply to absolve both companies of colluding to distort competition. However, it must be noted that this line of attack, I believe, is significantly weaker than that found in Article 9/Article 102.
Of course, being just a student, I could be wrong in both circumstances. Indeed, after theorising a bit too much about it, I'm starting to doubt the validity of these arguments myself. But I'll leave it to anyone else with proper judgement to go ahead and comment on the situation at hand; even though I still believe that something fishy is going on between these two major players within the Maltese communications market.
God Bless You all!
Matti
I have to admit, when reading the recent news that Melita had lost the rights to transmit Barclays Premier League matches from season 2010/11 through to season 2012/13 to GO plc, I was extremely shocked. To say the least. This means that a large chunk of sporting action that I see on the weekends would indeed be gone from my very eyes, provided that I remain with Melita for the next three odd years. Which, judging by the way how it's going downhill, I don't think will really be the case, but anyway. Anyhow, as a response to this, Melita claimed that they are still the leaders in providing sports to local households, and they also still retained exclusive rights in items such as the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League, Serie A and the Bundesliga.
So far, all is fine and dandy. It was the typical response that I expected from Melita, one which obviously tried to make them look in as little a bad light as possible while, at the same time, promoting the programmes which they show. Of course, they did forget to mention that Saturday afternoons will probably be spent, after August 2010, with replays of old Italian and German football matches being shown on their (now excessive) eight different channels dedicated to sport; these interspersed with everyone's favourite show, a bout of horse racing from Sweden. Naturally, I'm hoping you're noting the sarcastic tone here. Furthermore, they also conveniently forgot to tell us customers that the price of the sports package will probably still be going up due to some fabricated administrative cost, or something of the sort. In brief, Melita will indeed become more pathetic than they already are come the end of Summer 2010.
However, while thinking over it, I ended up by coming to another conclusion vis-a-vis what is happening with GO and Melita. Perhaps it is a bit far-fetched, but I think it's worth stating it nonetheless. I noticed a trend in Melita's declining sporting list year after year: in 2007, GO announced that they would be transmitting Wimbledon from 2008 onwards; in 2008, GO announced that they had managed to obtain the exclusive rights to transmit Formula 1 from 2009 onwards; and now, in 2009 GO announced that they will be transmitting the Premier League from 2010. (Of course, Melita's prices never decreased despite the fact that two major sporting events were not transmitted over the last two years; and I fully expect this trend to continue come 2010, hence the reasoning for my logic above). Coincidence? I think not.
My belief is that both Melita and GO are currently in breach of the law. To be more specific, I think that these two companies are breaching Articles 5 and 9 of the Competition Act (in Malta), or Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU, the ex-EC Treaty), i.e. there is collusion going on between both Melita and GO with regard their television services, meaning that there is the notion of market distortion in this sector and abuse of a dominant position. I will start with the latter point though, as this seems to be easier to tackle.
For a start, with regards abuse of a dominant position, there must be two criteria satisfied; i.e. dominant position in the relevant market and abuse. It can clearly be argued that combined, both Melita and GO have got a majority share in the television market, especially with regard to the relevant product market (sporting events), as both providers show pretty much everything, be it football, Formula 1 or wrestling. The geographical and temporal markets do not have any relevance in this circumstance. Secondary to this, there must be abuse. Now, while this is not a notion that us students have exactly tackled just yet, I can understand that there is the potential for the constant switching of services from one provider to another to be classified as abuse. Both providers may indeed be doing this to simultaneously increase their shares in the market relating to sporting events, and hence increase clientele and profits accordingly. If this is proven, and of course, it is obviously much more difficult to do so other than just stating that which I am currently stating, then there already is a breach of Article 9 of the Competition Act or Article 102 of the TFEU.
This brings me to my second point. Is there collusion going on between Melita and GO, which are, for the purposes of the law, classified as two undertakings? If I had to apply my theory, as I briefly outlined in bold above, then one could argue that there is a horizontal agreement between both television providers. However, such a horizontal agreement would have to be proven by means of oral or written communication; and quite frankly, I doubt both companies would do something as stupid and as ridiculous as that; and is hence extremely difficult to prove. Prima facie, one might also argue that this could fall under the heading of a concerted practice between undertakings, but upon further examination of this notion, one must realise and understand that this is "a form of coordination between undertakings which, without having reached the stage where an agreement properly so called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes practical cooperation between them for the risks of competition". Therefore, one cannot classify that happening between both companies as such a concerted practice, for the purposes of Competition Law.
The second part of Article 5(1) speaks of market distortion. The law states that "any agreement between undertakings... having the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition" is prohibited. It is necessary to look at the conjunction 'or' over here, as this means that not both the object and effect must be proven, but if one is proven, then it is enough. One could seriously argue that both undertakings' actions are currently having the desired effect. But do these actions fall under the exceptions to the articles in question? After analysing the law accordingly, I cannot see how the exceptions as outlined in Article 5(3) or 101(3) apply to absolve both companies of colluding to distort competition. However, it must be noted that this line of attack, I believe, is significantly weaker than that found in Article 9/Article 102.
Of course, being just a student, I could be wrong in both circumstances. Indeed, after theorising a bit too much about it, I'm starting to doubt the validity of these arguments myself. But I'll leave it to anyone else with proper judgement to go ahead and comment on the situation at hand; even though I still believe that something fishy is going on between these two major players within the Maltese communications market.
God Bless You all!
Matti
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Of Countdowns and Observations
While the build up on my MSN nickname has been intense as ever in the last 14 odd days, today, the official countdown to the end of exams - and eventual promotion to LL.B. III (already!) - has now started with the completion of exam one out of four. At the time of writing, us law students are precisely 1 week, 6 days, 11 hours and 45 minutes away from freedom! Anyway, I'm happy to announce that Commercial Law remained as predictable as the past papers indicated it would be, and I'm also happy to announce that that will probably be the easiest 10 credit exam that I sat for in my life. Seriously. Let's now hope that the Commercial honchos aren't the worst or strictest of markers out there, to the extent that they have to get off their high horses to appreciate that with studying, the student can produce some good answers in an exam.
Onto this afternoon's happenings, where I was drafted into EF for Teaching Observation. To be honest, I didn't go in with many high hopes because I thought it would be a waste of time, but I actually ended up by realising how much one can learn from others with a certain amount of experience, no matter how short the sessions at hand are. This doesn't mean that I will not be adopting my own teaching style come when I settle into the job at the end of June, despite my inexperience, but it did help calm my fears about teaching being a real hard ordeal. When one has textbooks at his disposal, the ordeal automatically becomes a hell of a lot easier, and then it's simply up to the teacher to be in control of the class. At least, that's how I felt it.
And in a blog that is bereft of ideas, I might as well fill up another mini-paragraph with one common sentiment: for the one time that I went there to study; last Thursday, to be precise, because of the presence of the maid at home; I actually miss Room 101! Okay, maybe not the room itself, but the company that is associated with it. Seeing that I feel capable of getting more content done at home, this has kind of left people like myself a bit socially deprived during the week due to the fact that, well, I'm staying indoors! On the other end of the scale, however, I really am thanking God that I didn't take Architecture as a course at University... while I, and other law students, might be going bonkers over Administrative and Criminal Law now, our 'bonkers' is simply nothing compared to that suffered in Architecture. I actually pity the people there... and a clear example of what they're passing through can be seen and illustrated clearly by none other than the ever-increasingly popular Lanf! ;)
God Bless You all!
Matti
Onto this afternoon's happenings, where I was drafted into EF for Teaching Observation. To be honest, I didn't go in with many high hopes because I thought it would be a waste of time, but I actually ended up by realising how much one can learn from others with a certain amount of experience, no matter how short the sessions at hand are. This doesn't mean that I will not be adopting my own teaching style come when I settle into the job at the end of June, despite my inexperience, but it did help calm my fears about teaching being a real hard ordeal. When one has textbooks at his disposal, the ordeal automatically becomes a hell of a lot easier, and then it's simply up to the teacher to be in control of the class. At least, that's how I felt it.
And in a blog that is bereft of ideas, I might as well fill up another mini-paragraph with one common sentiment: for the one time that I went there to study; last Thursday, to be precise, because of the presence of the maid at home; I actually miss Room 101! Okay, maybe not the room itself, but the company that is associated with it. Seeing that I feel capable of getting more content done at home, this has kind of left people like myself a bit socially deprived during the week due to the fact that, well, I'm staying indoors! On the other end of the scale, however, I really am thanking God that I didn't take Architecture as a course at University... while I, and other law students, might be going bonkers over Administrative and Criminal Law now, our 'bonkers' is simply nothing compared to that suffered in Architecture. I actually pity the people there... and a clear example of what they're passing through can be seen and illustrated clearly by none other than the ever-increasingly popular Lanf! ;)
God Bless You all!
Matti
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)