Setembro 2017 vol. 4 num. 2 - II Encontro Nacional de Economia Industrial e Inovação

Artigo Completo - Open Access.

Idioma principal | Segundo idioma

Knowledge-based startups or small companies’ mergers & acquisitions: an antitrust debate? Recent cases from US, EU and Brazil

Knowledge-based startups or small companies’ mergers & acquisitions: an antitrust debate? Recent cases from US, EU and Brazil

PIRES-ALVES, Camila C. ; GONZALO, Manuel ; LYRA, Marcos Puccioni de Oliveira ;

Artigo Completo:

A emergência do novo paradigma tecno-econômico baseado nas TICs tem influenciado o debate antitruste. Este trabalho busca responder duas perguntas. Primeiro, como as autoridades antitruste deveriam considerar as aquisições de startups ou pequenas empresas de base tecnológica. Segundo, quais são os desafios institucionais que se apresentam nesta área. Apesar da escassez de literatura específica, apresenta-se o debate conceitual e teórico existente e examinam-se casos recentes nos Estados Unidos e na União Europeia procurando encontrar questões relevantes para responder ao objetivo proposto. Também se apresentam alguns casos recentes do Brasil para trazer recomendações gerais e guiar desdobramentos para pesquisa futura. Podemos sustentar que participações de mercado não são uma boa proxy de poder de mercado no que refere ao sucesso da estratégia de inovação das firmas, porque pode ser volátil no curto-prazo ou não demonstrar o potencial da empresa na concorrência por inovação. Vimos que há importantes contribuições no sentido de sintetizar em princípios gerais e comportamentos possíveis quanto aos incentivos a inovar pós-fusão. Entretanto, foram desenhados a partir de qualquer efeito em inovação, e ainda assim não possuem sistematização e procedimentos bem definidos na experiência internacional. No caso das empresas pequenas ou startups, levantamos algumas questões a serem abordadas: o market share reduzido ou inexistente, a importância de identificar o comprador e suas mudanças nos incentivos para manter a inovação são algumas especificidades que tornam as análises ainda mais complexas. Há, ainda, importante defasagem das autoridades no acompanhamento desses casos uma vez que os critérios de notificação estão amparados em faturamento das empresas ou grupos. Finalmente, a introdução de critérios que consideram o valor da transação pode ser um bom ponto de partida.

Artigo Completo:

The emergence of a new techno-economic paradigm mainly based in the ICT technologies naturally have influenced the ongoing antitrust debate. This paper is devoted to answer two questions. First, how the antitrust authorities should consider knowledge-based startups or small companies acquisitions. Second, what are the current institutional challenges in this topic. Despite this discussion is not much explored in the literature, we looked at the antitrust theoretical debate and examined the recent merger cases in the United States and in the European Union in order to extract some insights about these questions. Also, we briefly explored some selected Brazilian recent cases to draw some policy and academic further agenda in this country. We can sustain that market shares are not an accurate proxy for market power considering the ability of succeed in innovation strategies; they can be highly volatile or cannot appropriately show the firm’s potential in the competition for innovation. We see that there are important contributions to present general principles concerning the incentives to innovate post-merger. Nevertheless, they were designed to accomplish all kind of merger effects in innovation. For the startups or small firms case, we raised some issues to be addressed: the small or even non-existent market share and the importance of identifying the buyer and their changes in incentives to maintain the innovation path are some specificity that turns the analyses even more complex. There are relevant gap for the antitrust authorities, as the submission threshold are mainly based on companies revenues. The introduction of additional thresholds for the value of transaction may be a starting point.

Download (PDF)

Palavras-chave: antitruste, defesa da concorrência, startups, pequenas empresas, inovação, US, UE, Brasil,

Palavras-chave: antitrust, competition policy, startups, small enterprises, innovation, US, EU, Brazil,

DOI: 10.5151/enei2017-53

Referências bibliográficas
  • [1] Audretsch, D. (2013) Entrepreneurship and competition policy. In Neumann, N. and Weigand, J. (eds). The International Handbook of Competition. Edward Elgar, 2013.
  • [2] Audretsch, D. and Keilbach, M. (2007) The Theory of Knowledge Spillover Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies 44(7), 1242–1254.
  • [3] Audretsch, D. and Thurik, A. (1997) Sources of growth: the entrepreneurial versus the managed economy. Tinbergen Institute discussion paper TI 97-109/3, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • [4] Audretsch, D. and Thurik, R. (2000) What`s new about the new economy? Sources of growth in the managed and entrepreneurial economy. ERIM Report Series Research Management.
  • [5] Audretsch, D. Leeuwen van G. Menkveld B. and Thurik, R. (2001) Market dynamic in the Netherlands: Competition policy and the role of small firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization 19 795-821
  • [6] Audretsch, D., Thurik, R., Verheul, I. and Wennekers, S. (2002) Entrepreneurship: Determinants and Policy in a European-US Comparison. London: Kluwer.
  • [7] Autio, E. (1997) New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative impacts. Research Policy, 26(3): 263-281.
  • [8] Budzinski, O. (2007) Monoculture versus diversity in competition economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32(2), 295-324.
  • [9] Cassiolato, J, and Lastres, H. (2008) Discussing innovation and development: Converging points between the Latin American school and the Innovation Systems perspective? Working Paper No. 2008-02, Globelics.
  • [10] Ceria, S. and Pallotti, C. (2010) Argentina’s Offshore Software Industry - Opportunities and Challenges. Congreso Mundial de Ingeniería de Software, Saint Petersburg (Russia), Available at http://www.lupacorp.com/seafood/Ceria-Pallotti-PaperSeafood1.1.pdf
  • [11] Danson, M. (1996): New firm formation and regional economic development: an introduction and review of Scottish experience. In Danson, M (ed) Small Firm Formation and Regional Economic Development. Routledge
  • [12] Department of Justice of United States of America; Federal Trade Commission (2010). Horizontal Merger Guidelines.
  • [13] DG COMP. (2011) REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004. MERGER PROCEDURE. Case No COMP/M.6281 -MICROSOFT/ SKYPE. 2011. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6281_924_2.pdf
  • [14] DG COMP. (2014) REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004. MERGER PROCEDURE. Case No COMP/M.7217 -FACEBOOK/ WHATSAPP. 20 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m7217_20141003_20310_3962132_EN.pdf
  • [15] Dosi, G. (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: as suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.
  • [16] Dosi, G. (1984) Mudança Técnica e Transformação Industrial. A Teoria e uma Aplicação à indústria dos semicondutores. Classics da Inovação, Editora Unicamp.
  • [17] European Commission (2004) Benchmarking Enterprise Policy: Results from the 2004 Scoreboard. Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2004).
  • [18] Fajnzylber, F. (1983) La industrialización trunca de América Latina. México, D.F.: Editorial Nueva.
  • [19] Farrel, J. (2006) Complexity, diversity, and antitrust. Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1): 165-173.
  • [20] Ferrer, A. (1963) La economía argentina desde sus orígenes hasta principios del siglo XXI. Fondo de cultura Económica. 2004.
  • [21] Fontes, M. and Coombs, R. (2001) Contribution of new technology-based firms to the strengthening of technological capabilities in intermediate economies. Research Policy, 30(1): 79-97.
  • [22] Gilbert, B. Audretsch, D. and McDougall, P. (2004) The emergence of entrepreneurship policy. Small Business Economics 22(3): 313-323.
  • [23] Gilbert, R. and Sunshine, S. (1995). Incorporating dynamic efficiency concerns in merger analysis: the use of innovation markets. Antitrust Law Journal, 63(2): 569–601.
  • [24] Gonzalo, M. (2015) Desarrollo y extranjerización temprana de capacidades empresariales locales en Argentina: el caso Core Security. Pymes, Innovación y Desarrollo, 2(3): 121–144.
  • [25] Gonzalo, M., Federico, J., Drucaroff, S. and Kantis, H. (2013) Post-Investment Trajectories of Latin American Young Technology-Based Firms: An Exploratory Study. Venture Capital: An international Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 15(2): 115-133.
  • [26] Gonzalo, M., Federico, J., Drucaroff, S., and Kantis, H. (2011) The “foreignization” of technology-based start-ups and their contributions to local industry. Reflections based on three case studies”. 9th GLOBELICS International Conference, Buenos Aires, 2011.
  • [27] ICOMP (2011) Google under the Antitrust Microscope. Initiative for a competitive online marketplace. October 20th, 2011
  • [28] ICOMP (2012) How Google Monopolised Online Mapping & Listings Services. Initiative for a competitive online marketplace. November 15th, 2012
  • [29] Jorde, T. and Teece, D. (1990) Innovation, dynamic competition, and antitrust policy. Regulation 13(3): 35-44.
  • [30] Kantis, H., Federico, J., Lopez, A., Ramos, D., Castillo, M., Bacic, M., Choupay, E. (2013) “¿Emprendimientos dinámicos en el cono sur de América Latina?: la clave es el (eco)sistema". Red. MERCOSUR.
  • [31] Kantis, H., V. Moori-Koenig, and P. Angelelli. (2004). Developing Entrepreneurship. Experience in Latin America and Worldwide. Washington, DC: Interamerican Development Bank.
  • [32] Kerber, W. (2010) Competition, innovation and maintaining diversity through competition law. In: Drexl, J. Kerber, W and Podszun, R. (eds.) Economic approaches to competition law: Foundations and Limitations, Edward Elgar.
  • [33] Lundström, A. and Stevenson, L. (2005) Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practice. Nueva York: Springer.
  • [34] Mandel, M. and Carew, D. (2011) Innovation by acquisition: New dynamics of high-tech competition. Progressive Policy Institute, Policy Memo, November 2011.
  • [35] Mason, C. and R. Harrison (2006) After the Exit: Acquisitions, Entrepreneurial Recycling and Regional Economic Development. Regional Studies 40(1): 55–73.
  • [36] Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State. Anthem Press.
  • [37] Motta, M. (2004) Competition Policy. Theory and Practice. Cambridge. University Press. 2004.
  • [38] O´Connor, D. (2013) An Antitrust Analysis of Google's Waze Acquisition: Disruptive Competition and Antitrust Merger Review. Disruptiva Competition Project.
  • [39] Perez, C. (2001): Cambio tecnológico y oportunidades de desarrollo como blanco móvil. Revista de la CEPAL, 75.
  • [40] Pérez, C. (2002): Technological Revolutions and Finance Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • [41] Pérez, C. and Soete, L. (1988) Catching up in technology: Entry barriers and windows of opportunity. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter Publishers.
  • [42] Pinto, A, (1970) Naturaleza e implicancias de la 'heterogeneidad estructural' en América Latina. El Trimestre Económico, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 37(145).
  • [43] Popper, B. (2012) Failure is a feature: how Google stays sharp gobbling up startups. The Verge, September 17th, 2012.
  • [44] Possas, M. (2002) Concorrência Schumpeteriana. In Kupffer, D., Hasenclever, L. (eds.). Economia Industrial: Fundamentos Teóricos e Práticas no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
  • [45] Possas, M., Fagundes, J. and Pondé, J. (1996). Política antitruste: Um enfoque schumpeteriano. Estudos Econômicos da Construção 1(1): 1-24.
  • [46] Rodríguez, O. (2006) O estruturalismo latino-americano. CEPAL.
  • [47] Schumpeter, J. (1942) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: George Allen and Unwin (5th ed. 1976).
  • [48] Shapiro, C. (2011) Competition and Innovation: Did Arrow Hit the Bull's Eye? The rate and direction of inventive activity revisited. University of Chicago Press, 2011.
  • [49] Sidak, J. and Teece, D. (2009) Dynamic competition in antitrust law. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 5.4 (2009): 581-631.
  • [50] Soares, C., Hausmann Tavares, J., Gonzalo, M., Tomassini, C. and Cassiolato, J. (2015) The need of an alternative approach to GVC´S literature. Transnational corporations and national systems of innovation systems in a Latin American perspective. 13th Globelics International Conference, Havana, Cuba
  • [51] Sunkel, O. (1971) Capitalismo transnacional y desintegración nacional. Estudios Internacionales, 4(16): 3-61.
  • [52] Szapiro, M., Vargas, M., Brito, M. and Cassiolato, J. (2015) Global Value Chains and National Systems of Innovation: policy implications for developing countries. 13th Globelics International Conference, Havana, Cuba
  • [53] Tavares, M. C. (1985) Acumulação de capital e industrialização no Brasil. Campinas: UNICAMP Editora.
  • [54] TIME (2013) Crosstown Traffic: Why Google’s $1B Waze Deal Faces U.S. Antitrust Scrutiny. June 23th, 2013.
  • [55] Uriona Maldonado, M., Morero, H. y Borrastero, C. (2013) Catching up en Servicios Intensivos en conocimiento: el caso de la producción de software y servicios informáticos de Argentina y Brasil. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, Vol. 8, No. 24
  • [56] Wasserman, N. (2003) Founder-CEO succession and the paradox of entrepreneurial success. Organization Science 14(2): 149–172.
  • [57] Zavatta, R. (2008) Financing Technology Entrepreneurs and SMEs in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: infoDev / World Bank.
  • [58] CrunchBase - www.crunchbase.com
  • [59] StatCounter - www.statcounter.com
  • [60] Statista - www.statista.com
Como citar:

PIRES-ALVES, Camila C.; GONZALO, Manuel; LYRA, Marcos Puccioni de Oliveira; "Knowledge-based startups or small companies’ mergers & acquisitions: an antitrust debate? Recent cases from US, EU and Brazil", p. 968-989 . In: . São Paulo: Blucher, 2017.
ISSN 2357-7592, DOI 10.5151/enei2017-53

últimos 30 dias | último ano | desde a publicação


downloads


visualizações


indexações