Japan: Japanese version of "Conscious Parallelism" - JFTC Finds Implied Agreement Between NEC and Toshiba from "Symbolic" Conducts

Last Updated: 22 October 2003
Article by Tetsuji Tsujikawa
On June 30, 2003, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission ("JFTC") found implied agreement in a bid case. This decision would be progressive in antitrust practice in Japan, where ethnical tendency toward coordination has hindered entry into Japanese markets or government bids. Before this case, in the normal cartel or bid-rigging cases, the antitrust enforcers have found implied agreements based on some evidence of competitors’ explicit communications, followed by conduct that is consistent with an agreement having been reached as a result of the competitor communications. In this case, however, the JFTC inferred an agreement without direct finding that there had been meetings or information exchange between NEC and Toshiba.

I. Background

Respondents, Toshiba Corp. (Toshiba) and NEC Corp. (NEC) had been traditional suppliers to the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications for automatic letter sorting machines for post offices. Under the Ministry’s "closed" bid system, the Ministry would tender a bidding article either to NEC, or to Toshiba, and whichever company received the advance bid information would become the designated supplier for that article. Beginning with the 1995 bid cycle, however, the Ministry switched to "open" bidding, where any qualified company had access to the bid packages in advance of the due date. Both companies objected to the open bid process, and in a joint meeting requested the procurement official to continue his practice of prior disclosure of bid information. At the companies’ request, officials in the Ministry reached an arrangement with them concerning prior disclosure, set a relatively short time for delivery of articles, and required qualified bidders to interface to the Toshiba or NEC machines already installed in the post offices. On each of the open bids in 1995, 1996 and 1997, the Ministry’s procurement officer continued the past practice of providing advance information either to Toshiba or to NEC. Only the company receiving the advance information submitted a bid, and therefore that company won the open bid for that article. The company not receiving the advance information declined to submit a bid.

II. Discussion

1. Lack of Competition between them as a Matter of Law.

1) Respondents argument

Respondents first argued that in each bid the ministry officials predetermined a winner by providing information to one of them prior to the bid. As a result of the Ministry’s behavior, they argued, the Ministry predetermined which company was to bid for the article, and therefore it was not in competition with the non-bidding company. Under this argument, there was not a "market" or competitive circumstance that could be affected by anticompetitive behavior.

2) Decision made by the JFTC

a. Conditions For Competitive Circumstance in a Bid Case

Under Japanese Competition Law, competition in a bid can be found where the following facts are satisfied:

  1. Each has eligibility for open bid.
  2. Little difference between each company’s machine in specification and quality.
  3. Each company could have asked to officials specification necessary for interfacing to pre-installed machine

b. Exception

In a bid case, competition among participants cannot be found where a participant cannot participate in bid at its will due to force made by others. It falls short of "due to force", where i) officials never promise to buy those articles in open bid, ii) the officials have not ordered one party not to participate in the bid, and iii) participants have positively accepted conducts made by officials.

In this case, the JFTC found the foregoing conditions for competitive circumstance and found the facts falling short of "due to force," concluding that respondents cannot use exception.

2. Lack of Agreement.

1) Respondents argument

The companies also argued that there was no evidence of any actual agreement between them as to which one would be the successful bidder.

2) Decision made by the JFTC

The JFTC cited a court decision in Toshiba Chemical v JFTC, see 1994 Gyo-Ke 144 Tokyo Appellate Court, stating as general rule that implied agreement can be found where participants predict and recognize others’ price increase and have intent to follow such conducts made by others. Based on this rule, the JFTC found an implied agreement from the following facts.

  1. Market Structure; Duopoly in market structure and high entry barrier
  2. Business Conduct (Past); Prior to the introduction of open bid, it was the customary conduct that only the information-acquiring company participated in and won the bid
  3. Business Conduct (At the time); Recognition made by both parties at a meeting that officials will continue to make prior disclosure only to either of them even after a change to open bid and anticipation made by both parties that possible participant in bid will be limited to them
  4. Business Conduct (Subsequent); Actual Continuous prior disclosure and adjustment for delivery made by officials even after change in bid method
  5. No Justification; Customary conducts was irrational after an open bid because these conduct are inconsistent with purpose of open bid and each of them won half of bids in 1995 and 1997
  6. Subsequent Changes; Price in subsequent bid went down strikingly after officials stopped disclosure and Hitachi entered a bid.

III. Review

1. Review of the decision

I imagine that both parties were surprised to see this decision. To me this decision seems to reflect change made by the JFTC in stance toward strict enforcement. I would describe details about the history and other facts, which seem to be related to implied agreement in order.

April 15 1994;

An official meeting among persons of NEC and Toshiba, and some officials. Report made by officials of prospective of open bid.

September 2;

An official meeting among three parties. Objections made by persons of both companies to official, and requests of continuing prior disclosure.


Person of Toshiba requested stopping of open bid or continuing of prior disclosure. This request was not made in front of a person of NEC.

January of 1995;

Person of NEC requested stopping of open bid or continuing of prior disclosure. This request was not made in front of a person of Toshiba.

January 26;

An official meeting among three parties. Report made by official of continuing prior disclosure.


Prior disclosure and adjustment for due date, including actual price negotiation.

July 3;

Open bid. Only the company receiving the advance information submitted a bid. The company not receiving the advance information declined to submit a bit.

Aug 7, 1996;

Open bid

Jan 30, 1997;

Open bid

Primarily based on hearing made by both companies of the report at the meeting on January 26, 1995, the JFTC found that both companies had made recognition that officials will continue prior disclosure under their perception that participants are limited to two companies, stating that implied agreement was formed.

However, I would point out two points seemingly confronting the JFTC finding.

1) Entry barrier

Entry barrier might not be high or both parties might not have the recognition that Hitachi would not enter a government bid at least in and after the year 1996.

The JFTC found the following facts but did not use as relevant and important facts for finding of implied agreement. Hitachi, in 1994, started research and development on this kind of machine with a German company, AEG, but this attempt failed. In 1996, it dissolved cooperation with AEG and began its research alone, and, in Oct of 1997, succeed in a machine at commercial level, and, finally in Feb of 1998, participated in a bid.

In response to these activities, internal discussions were made in each company. On June 14, 1994 a person of Toshiba made an internal memo on future action, which has not been shown to the other company. This memo says that, in the 1995 fiscal year, the company needs cooperation with NEC and avoids open bid to keep share and profit and, in the 1996 fiscal year, it needs cooperation with Hitachi as well as NEC. NEC also has recognized Hitachi as rival. A person of NEC made an internal memo on Sept. 5 and 30, 1994, which has not been shown to the other. This memo had pointed out possibility of entry of Hitachi/AEG after introduction of open bid and needs to hinder the entry.

Judging only from these internal memos, both companies have recognized Hitachi’s entry into open bid in and after 1996. Of course, both companies might have known failure made by Hitachi. This additional finding would be necessary to find recognition of entry barrier.

2) Customary conduct versus game theory

The JFTC found as one of reasons or factors irrational-ness of non-bidding made by the other on the basis that it could have joined a bid and earned profit. However, I would like have your opinion on whether less profitable customary conducts always make illegal coordination business conducts, especially in Japan.

As is often said, many Japanese companies would not decide their business plans only on numerical data and only for short-term profit, and they would not have corporate organizations, which enable immediate change. The US theory of conscious parallelism seems to be based a game theory in part. In analyzing strategic business conducts under a game theory, numerical profit maximization seems to be emphasized. Most of US companies have made business planning primarily based on numerical data for short term profit and have corporate structures, which make possible agile change.

Under such difference in business activities, more comprehensive finding and analysis seem to be necessary for finding implied agreement. I would like to hear economic or business administration analysis in this respect.

2. Two ways for Complaining about government bid.

If you have suspicion of illegal cartel made by Japanese companies in a government bid, you can file complaint with the JFTC and its local offices. You can also file a complaint with the special committee on government procurement, if such government bid violates the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, especially rules on bidding procedure. The foregoing procedure might violate Article VII, Paragraph 2, which sets forth that "Entities shall not provide to any supplier information with regard to a specific procurement in a manner, which would have the effect of precluding competition." This WTO Agreement covers bids of central government entities, sub-central government entities, and public undertakings.

This article just shows author's private view and does not show the firm's view.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions