An English translation Thank you, don t want software, hehe

Without such a clear strategic intent and strategic architecture, GTE seems to exist. While the impact of senior management discussions on the ever-changing IT industry, there is no universally accepted view that the capabilities in which will need to compete are widely communicated in this industry. While significant staff do identify key technologies, senior front-line management continues to serve as if they manage independent business units.

Decentralization, so it's hard to focus on core competencies. Instead, individual industries become increasingly dependent on outsiders for critical skills, and collaboration becomes a way to stage an exit. Today, with a new management team in place, GTE has applied its capabilities to telecom services in emerging markets on its own.

It seems that there is no such clear strategic intent and strategic structure in GTE. Although some senior executives believe that joining the IT industry will have a certain impact. There is not yet a widely discussed and accepted view of what exactly the industry requires.

Senior management continues to apply (the previous management approach) as if they were still managing separate business units. Decentralization makes it difficult to focus on improving core competencies. On the contrary, individual subordinate industries are increasingly relying on key technologies from outsiders, and are gradually detached from collaboration (within different industries of the enterprise).

Today, with the emergence of a new management team, GTE has taken on the responsibility of promoting the emergence of the telecommunications services market with its capabilities.

Investors understand these definitions of paradigm shifts better than economists, as they recognize that competition in this industry will be fiercer than in other established trades. This fierce competition creates high risks and demands for above-average earnings for compensation. However, the high risk of investors should be able to be converted into low risk by the antitrust authorities.

Because even the incumbent positions in the short and medium term are precarious, and there are constantly strong competitive forces emerging to dismantle the monopoly power.

3.Limitations of traditional indicators used to assess market definition and market power.

The fundamental underpinning of all competitive strategy (non-collusion) topics lies in the analysis of market monopoly power. In traditional antitrust economics and jurisprudence, the starting point of competition assessment is to define the concept of market (related). The conjecture is that if a company has a "high market share" with a high barrier to entry, then the company has monopoly power.

Therefore, the company's conduct is harmful to competition and must be scrutinized in detail. Without monopoly, non-collusive business practices would never give rise to antitrust issues. In the presence of monopoly power, undisputed business practices can also become problematic.

Traditionally, this has been determined by how a firm competes in the market and how much control a particular firm has over that market.

In U.S. antitrust law, there are two broad categories of traditional indicators that are commonly used to define markets and measure market power. They are the methodologies included in the Intrabank Consolidation Guidelines and the metrics in the Brown Shoe that are roughly related to these definitions. These indicators have been applied in court as if they were universally applicable and disregarded.

Henderson Anderson and Clark Clark (1990).

There are so many translations, and you can't use a translator.

The landlord's reward points are too small.

Investors understand that the impact of these paradigm shifts is significantly better.

Economists believe that investors who recognize that competition in these industries is often more mature and produce intense competition with high risk, and that higher risk than average returns are needed.

It should be translated into a lower risk to the antitrust authorities, because the incumbent position may be fragile even in the short to medium term and, often, competitive enough to revoke the monopoly if it arises.

It is used to evaluate the definition and traditional signs of the market.

Market forces. The fundamental basis for all (non-collusive) competition policy issues is:

Market Monopoly Analysis, Tradition, Antitrust Economics.

In jurisprudence, the starting point for competitiveness assessment is a concept.

Related) assumption is that if a company has a'High market share coupled with high barriers to entry, it has'monopoly'power。Therefore, its behavior can.

would harm competition and should also be considered most seriously.

The absence of monopolies, non-collusive commercial practices will not trigger the existence of anti-monopoly monopoly forces, and commercial practices would otherwise be.

It is beyond reproach that it may become a historical cancellation.

Termined defines market competition in which a company is then evaluated to the degree of control that a particular firm owns in that market.

In the U.S. antitrust case, there are two main categories of traditional signs that are commonly used to define market and derivative market measures.

1) Methods and (2) signs in the guidelines for lateral merging.

7, which corresponds approximately to what Brown has identified.

Use the courts as if they were of general application and do not take into account.

6 Henderson and Clark (1990).

Investors understand the implications of these exemplary proposals much better than economists do. Recognize that competition in these industries is much more intense than in mature industries. These fierce competitions incur high risks and higher returns than average.

However, the high risk for investors is low compared to the antitrust authorities. Because the current position in short- and medium-term projects is weak, competitiveness is often effective in eliminating monopoly power. It should be raised.

3.Limitations of traditional representations used to evaluate market definitions and market forces. The basis of all (non-association) competition policy norms is the analysis of market monopoly power.

In traditional antitrust economics and jurisprudence, the starting point of the competitive situation is the concept of (related) market, assuming that an industry has a high market share and a high entry threshold (barrier), it has monopoly power. Therefore, its actions are harmful to competition and should be treated with care and caution.

Lack of competitiveness, non-syndicated business practices have never been subject to antitrust policies. Because of the existence of monopoly power, there is a problem with uncontested business practices. This has been determined by the market definition of the industry competition and the degree of control of the particular industry that controls the market.

In the United States, antitrust jurisprudence, which has two main components of traditional characterization, is generally used to regulate the market and direct the degree of market power. It is the characterization of (1) the approach in the horizontal merger guidelines and (2) the characteristics that basically correspond to the characteristics of Brown Shoes. These jurisprudence have been applied in court as if they were generally acceptable, independent of Henderson and Clark (1990).

Finally, I hereby declare: 1. Except for particularly obvious errors, I try to be faithful to your original text. Second, it's so long, do you think about giving more points?