Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
[Skripsi ini membahas mengenai putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha tentang kewajiban penggunaan alat bongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane. Dalam rangka meningkatkan efisiensi dan produktivitas bongkar muat di lingkungan Pelabuhan Tanjung Priok, Para terlapor yakni PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II dan PT Multi Terminal Indonesia mengeluarkan surat pemberitahuan pemakaian alat bongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane secara bersama-sama di Dermaga 101, 101 utara, 102, 114 dan 115 bagi para pengguna jasa pelabuhan. Tindakan tersebut dirasa KPPU merupakan salah satu bentuk persaingan yang tidak sehat karena PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II dan PT Multi Terminal Indonesia dinilai telah melakukan tying agreement dan praktik monopoli yang merugikan pengguna jasa pelabuhan. Dalam memutus perkara ini, KPPU menjatuhkan hukuman kepada mereka dengan ketentuan pasal 15 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Skripsi yang dibuat dengan metode yuridis normatif ini meyimpulkan bahwa KPPU tidak tepat dalam memutus bersalah para terlapor dengan ketentuan mengenai tying agreement dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, mengingat surat pemberitahuan bukanlah termasuk dalam pengertian perjanjian.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties, PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services. According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt of the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999, considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of the agreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties, PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services. According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt of the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999, considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of the agreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties, PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services. According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt of the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999, considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of the agreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties, PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services. According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt of the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999, considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of the agreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties, PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services. According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt of the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999, considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of the agreement., This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision of Bussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloading equipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency and productivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties, PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter of notification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Crane together at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services. According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competition because PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done a tying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In deciding this case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridical method concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guilt of the reported with the provisions of the agreement tying in Law No. 5 of 1999, considering letter of the notification is not included in the definition of the agreement.]

Abstrak :
Studi yang menggunakan metode penetiltian yuridis normatif ini membahas hubungan antara Hukum Persaingan Usaha dan Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual HaKI , khususnya Paten. Adapun hubungan antara keduanya dibahas dengan meninjau dan membandingkan ketentuan pengecualian atas perjanjian terkait HaKI dalam Hukum Persaingan Usaha Indonesia dan Uni Eropa, khususnya pengaturan yang mengecualikan perjanjian lisensi paten. Pada umumnya kedua rezim hukum tersebut dianggap bertentangan satu sama lain, dimana HaKI mendorong terciptanya kekuatan monopoli, sedangkan hukum persaingan usaha melihat kekuatan monopoli sebagai sesuatu yang harus dibatas karena berpotensi untuk disalahgunakan abuse of monopoly power . Namun sebenarnya keduanya mempunyai kesamaan tujuan dan bersifat komplementer atau saling melengkapi satu sama lain. Dengan demikian keseimbangan antara keduanya menjadi suatu hal yang mutlak diperlukan. Adapun hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan, bahwa pengecualian atas perjanjian lisensi paten dalam hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia, kurang memperhatikan keseimbangan antara hak eksklusif paten yang bersifat privat dengan perlindungan terhadap persaingan usaha di pasar yang merupakan kepentingan publik, apabila dibandingkan dengan pengaturan di Uni Eropa.

---

This normative juridical study discusses the intersection between Competition Law and Intelectual Property Rights IPRs , particularly patent right, by examining regulations that exempts Patent License Agreements from Indonesian and The European Union Competition Laws. General view sees that there may be an instance of conflict between the two law regimes Whereas IPRs encourages monopoly, Competition Law tries to control market power. However, the two actually have common legislative goals and complementary to each other. Which is why a proper balance between the exclusivity of IPRs and fair market competition is necessary. Nevertheless, the result of this study shows that Patent License Agreements exemption from Indonesian Competition Law doesn rsquo t reflect that necessary balance, compared to its European Union counterpart.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Doktrin Fasilitas Penting atau Essential Facilities Doctrine merupakan kegiatan menghalangi pelaku usaha pesaing untuk menggunakan fasilitas penting bagi produksi dan distribusi pelaku usaha pesaing. Doktrin ini mengungkapkan bahwa salah satu jenis tindakan monopoli yang dilakukan oleh satu atau lebih pelaku usaha yang menguasai fasilitas penting dengan cara menutup akses bagi pelaku usaha pesaing untuk menggunakan fasilitas penting tersebut. Doktrin ini berkaitan dengan penguasaan pasar dan juga praktek monopoli sesuai dengan yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Atas keberadaan doktrin ini dilakukan penelitian untuk mengetahui dan menganalisa mengenai batasan atas penerapan doktrin tersebut dalam perspektif persaingan usaha dan bagaimana penerapannya dalam Putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) Perkara Nomor 03/KPPUl/ 2008 tentang Hak Siar Liga Utama Inggris, apakah telah memenuhi ketentuan dari prasyarat/karakteristik Doktrin Fasilitas Penting tersebut. Penelitian atas tesis ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Dalam penelitian tesis ini diketahui bahwa dalam pelaksanaan Doktrin Fasilitas Penting ini memiliki batasan sehingga doktrin ini dapat disimpangi. Batasan tersebut timbul ketika terdapat pengaturan di dalam undang-undang atas fasilitas penting. Selain itu berkaitan dengan izin atas penggunaan fasilitas penting dari pihak yang berwenang. Serta apabila dalam fasilitas penting tersebut terdapat unsur Hak Kekayaan Intelektual. Setelah dilakukan analisa lebih jauh dalam Putusan KPPU tersebut, diketahui bahwa Majelis Komisi telah benar menyatakan bahwa hak siar Liga Inggris adalah fasilitas penting. Sehingga akses untuk mendapatkan hak siar harus dibuka kepada publik, tidak dikhususkan hanya untuk televisi berbayar tertentu saja. Atas penggunaan doktrin tersebut diharapkan KPPU lebih jeli dalam menentukan karakteristik fasilitas penting, karena setiap kasus mengenai penguasaan pasar itu berbeda

---

ABSTRACT
Essential Facilities Doctrine is a blocking activity of business competitors to use important facilities for the production and distribution of business competitors. This doctrine reveals that one of monopoly action conducted by one (or more) business actor (s) who control important facilities by closing access for its business competitors to use those important facilities. This doctrine relates with market control as well as monopoly practices based on Law Number 5 of 1999 about Monopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This research is aimed to find out and analyze the limitation of this doctrine implementation on the perspective of business competition and the implementation on KPPU Decision Case Number 03/KPPU-L/2008 about Broadcasting Rights for UK Premier League, whether it meets the provisions of prerequisites/characteristic of this Essential Facilities Doctrine. This research is conducted using the normative jurisdicial research method. This research revealed that on the implementation of Essential Facilities Doctrine there was a limitation so that this doctrine can be remain unfulfilled. This limitation occured when there was provisions in the Law on important facilities. In addition, related with permits on the use of these important facilities from the authorities. Also, if there was elements of Intellectual Property Rights. After thorough analysis on KPPU Decision, it is revealed that broadcasting rights for English Premier League is important facility. So that the access to get the broadcasting rights should be opened to the public, not only specific just for certain television. On the utility of this doctrine, it was hoped that KPPU would be more careful in deciding the characteristic of important facilities, because each case on market control is different