The RECON typology of stalking: reliability and validity based upon a large sample of North American stalkers

A new typology of stalking, RECON (relationship and context-based), is proposed, based upon the prior relationship between the pursuer and the victim, and the context in which the stalking occurs. The static typology yields four groups: Intimate, Acquaintance, Public Figure, and Private Stranger. The typology was tested on a large (N = 1005) nonrandom sample of North American stalkers gathered from prosecutorial agencies, a large police department, an entertainment corporation security department, and the authors' files. Interrater reliability for group assignment was 0.95 (ICC). Discriminant validity (p < 0.01) was demonstrated on a variety of demographic, clinical, pursuit, threat, and violence characteristics among and between groups. Findings confirm and extend the work of other researchers, most notably the very high risk of threats and violence among prior sexually intimate stalkers, the very low risk of threats and violence among public figure (celebrity) stalkers, and the negative relationship between stalking violence and psychosis.     

Michelin II: A Per Se Rule Against Rebates by Dominant Companies?

In its Michelin II judgment of September 2003, the CFI foundthat Michelin breached Article 82 EC by setting up a systemof rebates that could potentially induce loyalty and excludeits competitors. This paper comments extensively on MichelinII and other cases, with a focus on what sort of competitionpolicy is desirable as regards rebates by dominant companies.Contrary to Michelin II, pricing policies of dominant companieswhich are not linear and not strictly reflecting economies ofscale are not necessarily anticompetitive and may indeed havesignificant pro-competitive effects. Furthermore, a requirementthat a rebate scheme be "economically justified" is very difficultto apply in practice, and the Court should not have put theburden of proof for the justification of quantitative rebatesupon the dominant company. Most preoccupying is the Court'srejection of the effect criterion when deciding on the legalityof a rebate: Such an approach, which differs markedly from USand UK law as well as from the OECD report on fidelity discounts,will generally result in a disproportionate per se-prohibitionof any pricing behaviour and in economic inefficiencies. A fairerand clearer approach could therefore distinguish between rebatesthat are per se allowed and other rebates that ought to be prohibitedonly if they have effects on the market.