All agreements between competitors should raise the following common issues: modern competition law has historically developed at the national level in order to promote and maintain fair competition in markets located mainly within the territorial borders of nation-states. As a general rule, national competition law does not cover activities across territorial borders, unless it has a significant impact at national level.  Countries may allow extraterritorial jurisdiction over competition, based on the so-called “doctrine of action”.   The protection of international competition is governed by international competition agreements. In 1945, during the negotiations preceding the adoption of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, the Charter of an International Trade Organization proposed limited commitments on international competition. These commitments were not included in the GATT, but the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created in 1994, with the conclusion of the multilateral negotiations of the Gatt Uruguay Round. The agreement establishing the WTO contained a number of limited provisions on various cross-border competition issues on a sectoral basis.  From the point of view of competition law, these agreements are likely to be considered “assimilable” infringements and considered anti-competitive, whether or not they have genuinely anti-competitive effects. In theory, such trade could still be justified under Article 101(3), but it is unlikely that it will be exempted, as it is generally linked to price or quantity fixing cartels. The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to prohibit the restriction of competition by large companies that cooperated with competitors to set outputs, prices and market shares, first by pools and then by trusts. Trusts first appeared in American railroads, where the capital needs of railroad construction precluded competitive services in then sparsely populated areas.
This trust has enabled the railways to discriminate against the tariffs and services imposed on consumers and businesses and to destroy potential competitors. Different trusts could dominate in different sectors. In the 1880s, Standard Oil Company trust controlled several markets, including the fuel oil, lead, and whisky markets.  Many citizens have become sufficiently aware and publicly of the negative impact of trusts on them as the law has become a priority for both major parties. One of the main concerns of this law is that competitive markets themselves should provide the primary regulation of prices, outputs, interests and profits. Instead, the law prohibited anti-competitive practices and codified the limitation of commercial doctrine under the common law.  Professor Rudolph Peritz argued that competition law in the United States has developed around two sometimes contradictory concepts of competition: first, that of individual freedom, free from state intervention, and, second, an environment of fair competition without excessive economic power. Since the passage of the Sherman Act, the application of competition law has been based on various economic theories adopted by the government.  FAS Russia discovered cartels of 1.5 billion rubles in the coal supply market* The FAS Russia Commission recognized PJSC TGC-2, JSC Arhoblenergo and LLC TEC as a violation of antimonopoly legislation.
Companies restrict competition by shortening the agreements between them and (…) If the R&D agreement only provides for R&D, the agreement must provide for the parties` access to the other`s existing know-how (payment for access is allowed). However, in most other cases, the Commission recognizes that the issue of pre-research disclosure may be left to negotiations between the parties. Both parties should have equal access to R&D results, considering that the parties agree to restrict their areas of exploitation (i.e. to specialise only in the use of certain result areas). . . .