BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Celtic International Insurance Company Ltd./Stellar International Ltd./Dotinga Investments B.V. [1998] IECA 519 (17th July, 1998)
Competition
Authority Decision of 15 September 1998 relating to a proceeding under Section
4 of the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification:
CA/6/95: Celtic International Insurance Company Ltd./
Stellar
International Ltd./Dotinga Investments B.V.
Decision
No 519
Introduction
1. Notification
was made on 28 February 1995 with a request for a certificate under
Section
4(4) of the
Competition Act, 1991 or, in the event of a refusal by the
Competition Authority to issue a certificate, a licence under
Section 4(2), in
respect of Supplemental Licence Agreement between Stellar International
Limited/Dotinga Investments B.V. and Celtic International Insurance Limited.
The
Facts
(a)
Subject of the Notification
2. The
notification concerns a Supplemental Licence Agreement between Stellar
International Limited (Stellar)/Dotinga Investments B.V. (Dotinga) and Celtic
International Insurance Limited (Celtic) relating to the licensing by Stellar
to Celtic of a method for programming a computer (the Invention) and a computer
programme (the Program) to generate quotations for motor insurance and the
communication of such quotations for potential customers.
(b)
The Parties Involved
3. Celtic
International Insurance Company Limited has its registered offices at Celtic
House, Salthill, Galway. The Ultimate Parent of Celtic is Eureko B.V. Eureko
B.V. is a holding company with interests in a number of companies involved in
the financial services industry, mainly insurance. Eureko Ireland is a holding
company for Celtic and Friends Provident. Celtic is involved in the business
of non-life insurance. At the end of 1997 Celtic sold its commercial insurance
lines business to Hibernian. Celtic is still involved in the car and household
insurance sectors. As of the 27 April 1998, Friends Provident was rebranded as
Friends First.
4. Stellar
International Limited is an investment company with registered offices at 15 St
Mary’s Road, Galway. The parties stated that the ultimate parent of
Stellar is Jaques. Dotinga Investments B.V., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Stellar, has its registered office at Stravinskylaan 1725 1077, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. The group’s main business is software development and
licensing. Stellar International Limited is the sole shareholder in Dotinga
which is in turn owned by Jaques (an unlimited liability company).
Stellar’s turnover in Ireland during the financial year ending 31st
December 1992 was nil. For the financial year ending 31st December 1993 its
turnover was [ ]. Celtic’s turnover in Ireland
during the financial year ended 31st December, 1992 was IR£19,864,000.
The parties claimed that neither Celtic, Stellar nor Dotinga
[1]
control any other company in the relevant market (as defined) in the State.
(c)
The Products and the Market
5. The
parties claimed that there is a significant number of sellers on the Irish
computer software market. The parties stated that their belief was that it was
not only Irish companies but also overseas software houses and writers who
could and do operate in this market. The parties claimed that it is therefore
impossible to quantify the exact number of participants but they believed that
was correct to say that was a very large number. The parties claimed that the
buyers would be mainly those persons (legal or natural) who require computer
programs in the non-life insurance sector. This would include not only
existing but also potential insurers. The parties further claimed that the
potential market is the world because of the easy availability of programs from
elsewhere in the world, particularly, the USA.
6.
The parties claimed that the relevant market is the market for the production
of computer software as applied to insurance quotes in the motor insurance
industry and that the relevant Territory is the world. The Authority considers
that the relevant (upstream) market is the market for the provision of computer
programmes to obtain insurance quotes in the motor car insurance trade (in the
world). As there are many potential buyers of such programmes and many
different providers, and potential providers, of such programmes the market is
global and is characterised by effective competition worldwide.
Table
1 IIF Motor Insurers’ Net Written Premium 1997
Company
|
Premium
Income (IR£000)
|
Market
Share (%)
|
Guardian/PMPA
|
206,936
|
29.20
|
Hibernian
Insurance Co. Ltd
|
78,096
|
11.02
|
Church
& General
|
63,736
|
8.99
|
FBD
|
61,951
|
8.74
|
Royal
SunAlliance
|
44,588
|
6.29
|
Norwich
Union General
|
43,588
|
6.15
|
Eagle
Star Ireland
|
36,458
|
5.14
|
Friends
First (formerly Celtic)
|
15,090
|
2.13
|
Others
(12)
|
158,228
|
22.33
|
TOTAL
|
708,671
|
100
|
Source:
Irish Insurance Federation Fact File 1997
7.
The relevant (downstream) market is the market for the provision of motor
insurance in the State
[2].
The motor insurance market in the State is estimated by the Irish Insurance
Federation
[3]
to be of the order of IR£732.7m in 1997. The IIF claims that motor
insurance accounts for 50.4% of the total gross premium income of non-life
insurers. Direct telephone sales, the segment that Celtic deal in, has been a
growing proportion of the market but the major players have moved into this
segment which has squeezed the smaller players. Celtic’s market share is
estimated at 2.13%.
(d)
The Notified Arrangements
8.
The Licensor (Stellar) is the proprietor of a computer program which
facilitates the generation of quotations for motor insurance and the
communication of such quotations for potential customers. The Licensor is the
inventor of an invention consisting of a method for the programming of a
computer, by means, inter alia, of which the above-mentioned program was
written and in respect of which a patent application has been made and is
pending in the Republic of Ireland and patents have been granted in Belgium and
South Africa. The Licensor granted to the Licensee a licence to use and to
sub-license the use of that program on the terms set out in an agreement
between them dated 26th May, 1993 (the “Original Agreement”). The
Licensor and the Licensee have now agreed that the Original Agreement shall be
amended by substituting the terms of the Agreement hereby notified in place of
the 26th May 1993 agreement.
(e)
Submission of the parties
9.
The Arrangement (signed on 28th July, 1993) relates to a computer program in
the non-life insurance sector. Stellar, the Licensor, is the proprietor of a
computer program which facilitates the generation of quotations for motor
insurance policies and the communication of such quotations by the computer
operator to potential customers. The licensor is the inventor of an invention
consisting of a method for the programming of a computer, by means, inter alia,
of which the aforementioned computer program was written. Similar inventions
and programs exist and are utilised by other insurance companies and insurance
brokers.
10. The
parties drew the Authority’s attention to provisions which may restrict
the parties in their freedom to take independent commercial decisions.
Clause
2 provides for a grant of a licence of the use of the Invention, the program
and the Trade Mark (each of these terms are defined in the Agreement). Clause
2 provides:
“1.1 In
consideration of the mutual covenants by the parties hereto the Licensor hereby
grants to the Licensee a Licence to use the Invention, the Program and the
Trade Marks in the Territory.
2.2
The
Licence granted pursuant to Clause 2.1 shall continue for thirty years from the
date hereof unless terminated by either party in accordance with Clause 6.”
Clause
3.1.2 provides that Dotinga and Stellar shall not give its consent pursuant to
the Existing Licences to the granting by the Existing Licensees of sub-licences
for the use of the Invention or the Program in the Territory without the prior
written consent of Celtic.
11. The
parties drew the Authority’s attention to the fact that the selection of
clause 2 is without prejudice to the Agreement as a whole and the attention of
the Competition Authority is drawn to the Agreement as a whole.
Arguments
in Support of Issuing a Certificate
12. The
Applicant submitted that the Arrangement does not violate
Section 4(1) of the
Act. The parties claimed that the arrangements did not have the object or
effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition within the state to
any appreciable extent and the parties further claimed that they were not
abusing any dominant position.
The
parties claimed that the notified arrangements did not so much prevent,
restrict or distort competition but facilitated the establishment of more
competition in the relevant markets by allowing for the spread of new
technology and developments from the Licensor to the Applicant. There were
similar products available and given the significant number of software houses,
the Applicants believed, that similar programs could be developed for other
insurers if they were to commission a software house to do so. Similar
products/programs are available in other countries and could, in the opinion of
the Applicants, be licensed into Ireland.
13. The
parties claimed that there was no significant distortion of trade and there was
likely to be a possible increase in trade by virtue of creating an environment
for creating new products. The Applicants believed that similar
products/programs are available should competitors wish to acquire them. The
parties submitted that where an arrangement does not have an appreciable affect
on trade in Ireland then the Authority may issue a Certificate. The parties
claimed that the Licence of software in this case would not adversely affect
competition in the software market because of the high and continued supply of
software to the market. The parties believed that the Agreement did not
appreciably affect trade in the State and thus argued that the Competition
Authority is entitled to grant a Certificate (see
Optical
Fibres OJ 1986 L236/20).
Arguments
in Support of Granting a Licence
14. The
parties submitted detailed arguments in support of the granting of a Licence.
However, the Authority is of the opinion the grant of a Licence does not apply
in this particular instance.
(f)
Assessment
(a)
Applicability of Section 4(1)
15.
Section
4(1) of the
Competition Act states that “all agreements between
undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted
practices, which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or
distortion of competition in goods or services in the State or in any part of
the State are prohibited and void”.
(b)
The Undertakings and the Agreement
16.
Section
3(1) of the
Competition Act defines an undertaking as "a person being an
individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for
gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a
service".
17. Celtic
is engaged for gain in the operation a non-life insurance concern and is
therefore an undertaking. Stellar is engaged for gain as an investment company
and is therefore an undertaking. Dotinga is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Stellar and is engaged for gain in the business of software development and
licensing and is therefore an undertaking. Thus, the notified arrangement is an
agreement between undertakings.
(c)
The Economics of Software Development and Intellectual Property Rights
18. Computer
software development is a form of R&D. There are relatively low entry
barriers into this market which primarily relies on human capital skills for
software development. In the field of software development, developers,
according to the OECD, would prefer if current patent protection was broader
than it currently is and they would, in all likelihood, realise that long
patent protection will not stop competitors producing better products in the
interim. The establishment of (patent) rights over R&D, in this case, the
Invention and the Program, confers an intellectual property right on Stellar
which is necessary to encourage Stellar, as an innovator, to undertake the
R&D necessary in order to produce new software tools and applications.
19. The
Authority is of the opinion, that intellectual property rights, IPRs, do not
necessarily confer market power. Essentially the dynamic gains from innovation
are consistently found to outweigh any static losses (conferred by the patent
rights). This view was articulated in Decisions No’s 502 to 505 and 506.
In the majority of instances there are
substitutable
processes or goods which enable competitors to compete. Further to this, the
incentives for others to undertake R&D and innovation, to develop a better
product are high, but as long as entry barriers for innovation are not
prohibitive, any market power enjoyed will be short lived.
(d)
Applicability of Section 4(1)
20.
As has been demonstrated in the economics literature, in most instances, it is
socially beneficial for a company to licence the use of its intellectual
property to third parties. Stellar (on its own account and through Dotinga)
has many such licences. Celtic has the licence for the Invention and the
Program for the world outside of Africa, the Indian sub-continent and the
People’s Republic of China. Celtic is free to sub-licence the
intellectual property in any manner it wishes.
21. In
the motor insurance market in the State, Celtic with an estimated market share
of 2.13% is clearly not in a position to use its IPRs over the Invention and
the Program in a manner contrary to
Section 4(1) of
the Act. In this, the
Authority considers that the impact of the arrangement on the motor insurance
market in the State is not anti-competitive and does not contravene
Section 4(1).
The
Decision
22. In
the Authority's opinion Dotinga, Stellar and Celtic are undertakings within the
meaning of
Section 3(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991 and the notified
Supplemental Licence Agreement is an agreement between undertakings. In the
Authority's opinion the notified agreement does not contravene
Section 4(1) of
the
Competition Act.
The
Certificate
23. The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate:
The
Competition Authority certifies that, in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the Supplemental Licence Agreement dated 28 July 1993
between Stellar International Ltd, Dotinga Investments B.V. and Celtic
International Insurance Company Ltd. notified under
Section 7 on 28 February
1995 (Notification No. CA/6/95) does not contravene
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act.
For
the Competition Authority
Professor
Patrick McNutt,
Chairperson,
15
September 1998
[1]
Dotinga’s total turnover in Ireland through the various companies was nil
for the year ended 31st December, 1992.
[2]
As we can see from Table 1, the motor insurance sector market is moderately
concentrated with a CR4 of 57.95% and a HHI of 1,313. Friends First (formerly
Celtic) command a market share of 2.13% in the market for motor insurance, with
a premium income of IR£15m.
[3]
The Irish Insurance Federation (IIF)
Fact File
for 1997 indicates that there are 20 firms in this market, a number that has
been falling in recent years due to consolidation
© 1998 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1998/519.html