Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[Skripsi ini membahas mengenai putusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usahatentang kewajiban penggunaan alat bongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane. Dalamrangka meningkatkan efisiensi dan produktivitas bongkar muat di lingkunganPelabuhan Tanjung Priok, Para terlapor yakni PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II dan PTMulti Terminal Indonesia mengeluarkan surat pemberitahuan pemakaian alatbongkar muat Gantry Luffing Crane secara bersama-sama di Dermaga 101, 101utara, 102, 114 dan 115 bagi para pengguna jasa pelabuhan. Tindakan tersebutdirasa KPPU merupakan salah satu bentuk persaingan yang tidak sehat karena PTPelabuhan Indonesia II dan PT Multi Terminal Indonesia dinilai telah melakukantying agreement dan praktik monopoli yang merugikan pengguna jasa pelabuhan.Dalam memutus perkara ini, KPPU menjatuhkan hukuman kepada mereka denganketentuan pasal 15 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999. Skripsi yangdibuat dengan metode yuridis normatif ini meyimpulkan bahwa KPPU tidak tepatdalam memutus bersalah para terlapor dengan ketentuan mengenai tyingagreement dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, mengingat suratpemberitahuan bukanlah termasuk dalam pengertian perjanjian.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof 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 theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof 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 theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof 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 theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof 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 theagreement.;This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof 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 theagreement., This thesis discusses about Decision of The Commission for The Supervision ofBussiness Competition (KPPU) about the obligation to use loading and unloadingequipment, Gantry Luffing Crane.In order to improve the efficiency andproductivity of loading and unloading in the Port of Tanjung Priok, The Parties,PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Mult Terminal Indonesia issued a letter ofnotification of the use of loading and unloading equipment Gantry Luffing Cranetogether at pier 101, 101 north, 102, 114 dan 115 for the users port services.According the Commision, this case one form of unfair bussiness competitionbecause PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II and PT Multi Terminal Indonesia have done atying agreement and monopoly practices that harm users port service. In decidingthis case, the Commission condemned them with the provisions of Article 15paragraph (2) of Law No. 5 of 1999. Thesis created with this normative juridicalmethod concludes that the Commission was not appropriate in deciding the guiltof 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 theagreement.]"

"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."

"ABSTRAKDoktrin Fasilitas Penting atau Essential Facilities Doctrine merupakan kegiatanmenghalangi pelaku usaha pesaing untuk menggunakan fasilitas penting bagiproduksi dan distribusi pelaku usaha pesaing. Doktrin ini mengungkapkan bahwasalah satu jenis tindakan monopoli yang dilakukan oleh satu atau lebih pelakuusaha yang menguasai fasilitas penting dengan cara menutup akses bagi pelakuusaha pesaing untuk menggunakan fasilitas penting tersebut. Doktrin ini berkaitandengan penguasaan pasar dan juga praktek monopoli sesuai dengan yang diaturdalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Praktek Monopoli danPersaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat. Atas keberadaan doktrin ini dilakukan penelitianuntuk mengetahui dan menganalisa mengenai batasan atas penerapan doktrintersebut dalam perspektif persaingan usaha dan bagaimana penerapannya dalamPutusan Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) Perkara Nomor 03/KPPUl/2008 tentang Hak Siar Liga Utama Inggris, apakah telah memenuhi ketentuandari prasyarat/karakteristik Doktrin Fasilitas Penting tersebut. Penelitian atas tesisini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Dalampenelitian tesis ini diketahui bahwa dalam pelaksanaan Doktrin Fasilitas Pentingini memiliki batasan sehingga doktrin ini dapat disimpangi. Batasan tersebuttimbul ketika terdapat pengaturan di dalam undang-undang atas fasilitas penting.Selain itu berkaitan dengan izin atas penggunaan fasilitas penting dari pihak yangberwenang. Serta apabila dalam fasilitas penting tersebut terdapat unsur HakKekayaan Intelektual. Setelah dilakukan analisa lebih jauh dalam Putusan KPPUtersebut, diketahui bahwa Majelis Komisi telah benar menyatakan bahwa hak siarLiga Inggris adalah fasilitas penting. Sehingga akses untuk mendapatkan hak siarharus dibuka kepada publik, tidak dikhususkan hanya untuk televisi berbayartertentu saja. Atas penggunaan doktrin tersebut diharapkan KPPU lebih jeli dalammenentukan karakteristik fasilitas penting, karena setiap kasus mengenaipenguasaan pasar itu berbeda

---

ABSTRACTEssential Facilities Doctrine is a blocking activity of business competitors to useimportant 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 businesscompetitors to use those important facilities. This doctrine relates with marketcontrol as well as monopoly practices based on Law Number 5 of 1999 aboutMonopoly Practices and Unfair Business Competition. This research is aimed tofind out and analyze the limitation of this doctrine implementation on theperspective of business competition and the implementation on KPPU DecisionCase Number 03/KPPU-L/2008 about Broadcasting Rights for UK PremierLeague, whether it meets the provisions of prerequisites/characteristic of thisEssential Facilities Doctrine. This research is conducted using the normativejurisdicial research method. This research revealed that on the implementation ofEssential Facilities Doctrine there was a limitation so that this doctrine can beremain unfulfilled. This limitation occured when there was provisions in the Lawon important facilities. In addition, related with permits on the use of theseimportant facilities from the authorities. Also, if there was elements of IntellectualProperty Rights. After thorough analysis on KPPU Decision, it is revealed thatbroadcasting rights for English Premier League is important facility. So that theaccess to get the broadcasting rights should be opened to the public, not onlyspecific just for certain television. On the utility of this doctrine, it was hoped thatKPPU would be more careful in deciding the characteristic of important facilities,because each case on market control is different"

"Industri usaha transportasi penyeberangan di Indonesia menjadi salah satu industri usaha yang penting dan banyak dimanfaatkan oleh masyarakat. Melihat bahwa Indonesia merupakan negara kepulauan yang terdiri dari beberapa pulau dan dipisahkan oleh laut sehingga untuk melakukan perpindahan mobilisasi dari pulau-pulau yang dipisahkan laut maka dibutuhkan alat transportasi angkut penyeberangan untuk membantu masyarakat berpindah secara efektif dan efisien. Salah satu pelabuhan yang paling ramai dikunjungi oleh konsumen yaitu pelabuhan merak – bakauheni yang berada di Banten dan Lampung. Dermaga baru didirikan di pelabuhan merak bakauheni dengan menggunakan konsep sebagai “dermaga eksekutif” dimana dalam dermaga tersebut pelayanan yang akan diberikan pada konsumen akan jauh lebih berkualitas daripada di dermaga lainnya. Dermaga eksekutif ini dibangun oleh negara untuk memberikan kenyamanan kepada para konsumen. Namun, terdapat permasalahan yang muncul dimana dermaga eksekutif ini hanya dioperasikan oleh satu perusahaan saja yaitu perusahaan BUMN (PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry). Tidak ada perusahaan operator penyeberangan lain yang ikut mengoperasikan kapal-kapal milik mereka di dermaga eksekutif. PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry sebagai pihak yang mengelola dermaga dan juga sebagai perusahaan yang menawarkan jasa angkut kapal sehingga market control yang dimiliki sangat besar. Kecurigaan-kecurigaan ini mengarahkan pada pelanggaran praktik monopoli dan penguasaan pasar dalam usaha jasa penyeberangan di dermaga eksekutif. Pada akhirnya, penulis, memberikan kesimpulan bahwa telah terjadi praktik monopoli dan pelanggaran persaingan usaha di dermaga eksekutif diakibatkan oleh besarnya market control yang dipegang oleh PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry sehingga menyebabkan dampak kerugian yang diterima oleh perusahaan swasta lain dan konsumen.

---

The ferry transportation business industry in Indonesia is one of the most important industries and is widely used by the community. Knowing that Indonesia is an archipelagic country consisting of several islands and separated by the sea, so that in order to carry out the mobilization of the islands separated by the sea, it is necessary to use cross-transportation to help people move effectively and efficiently. One of the most crowded ports visited by consumers is the Merak - Bakauheni port in Banten and Lampung. The new wharf was built at the port of Merak Bakauheni using the concept of an “executive wharf” in which the services that will be provided to consumers will be much higher quality than at other docks. This executive dock was built by the state to provide comfort to consumers. However, there are problems that arise where this executive dock is only operated by one company only, namely a state-owned corporation (PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry). There are no other ferry operators operating their vessels at the executive dock. PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry as the party that manages the wharf and also as a company that offers ship transportation services so that the market control it has is very large. These suspicions lead to the violation of monopolistic practices and market control in the ferry transportation business at the executive dock. In the end, the author concludes that there have been monopolistic practices and business competition violations at the executive dock caused by the large market control held by PT ASDP Indonesia Ferry, causing the impact of losses to other private ferry companies consumers.

"