Search Results

The possibility of new Merger Guidelines has been much discussed in the antitrust community, particularly in light of appointment of the two new chief agency economists, Carl Shapiro and Joe Farrell, who have done substantial work on the economics of horizontal mergers and market definition.  Today, the FTC and DOJ announced a series of workshops and period for public comment to explore potential revision of the Guidelines…

Read the full piece here.

Not very, according to the President in his recent health care speech, making the case that lack of competition and for-profit monopolists are what ails the health care market…

Read the full piece here.

Abstract

Harold Demsetz once claimed that ‘economics has no antitrust relevant theory of competition.’ Demsetz offered this provocative statement as an introduction to an economic concept with critical implications for the antitrust enterprise: the multi-dimensional nature of competition. Competition does not take place upon a single margin, such as price competition, but several dimensions that are often inversely correlated such that a liability rule deterring one form of competition will result in more of another. This insight has important implications for the current policy debate concerning how to design antitrust liability standards for conduct involving both static product market competition and dynamic innovative activity. The primary purpose of this essay is to revisit Demsetz’s broader challenge to antitrust regulation in the context of the frequently discussed tradeoffs between innovation and price competition. I summarize recent developments in our knowledge of the relationship between competition and innovation, highlighting the deficiencies that significantly constrain antitrust enforcers’ abilities to confidently calculate inevitable welfare tradeoffs. I conclude by discussing policy implications that follow from these limitations.

Abstract

This Chapter, forthcoming in the ABA Handbook on the Antitrust Aspects of Standards Setting (2010) provides an analytical overview of the antitrust issues involving intellectual property and standard setting including, but not limited to, patent holdup, royalty stacking, refusals to license, and patent pools.

This essay is the introduction to a forthcoming volume entitled, Regulating Innovation: Competition Policy and Patent Law Under Uncertainty (Cambridge U. Press 2009 forthcoming).

In addition to introducing all of the papers in the volume, this essay introduces the organizing themes of the volume. Innovation is critical to economic growth. While it is well understood that legal institutions play an important role in fostering an environment conducive to innovation and its commercialization, much less is known about the optimal design of specific institutions. Regulatory design decisions, and in particular competition policy and intellectual property regimes, can have profoundly positive or negative consequences for economic growth and welfare. However, the ratio of what is known to unknown with respect to the relationship between innovation, competition, and regulatory policy is staggeringly low. In addition to this uncertainty concerning the relationships between regulation, innovation, and economic growth, the process of innovation itself is not well understood.

The regulation of innovation and the optimal design of legal institutions in this environment of uncertainty are two of the most important policy challenges of the 21st century. Any legal regime must attempt to assess the tradeoffs associated with rules that will affect incentives to innovate, allocative efficiency, competition, and freedom of economic actors to commercialize the fruits of their innovative labors and foster economic growth. Unfortunately, as this essay describes, our tools for assessing these tradeoffs are limited.

Any coherent regulatory framework must take account of the low level of empirical knowledge surrounding the complex relationship between regulation – both through competition policy and patent law – and innovation, and the corresponding uncertainty caused by this absence of knowledge. The relationship between regulation and innovation has posed a significant challenge to antitrust economists at least since Schumpeter’s suggestion that dynamic competition would result in “creative destruction,” leading to a competitive process where one monopolist would replace another sequentially as new entrants developed a superior product.

Interfering in this dynamic process for the sake of static efficiency gains is perilous, but, of course, not impossible. But regulators and policy makers must take (more) seriously the condition of fundamental uncertainty in which they act, and the significant costs of their inevitable errors before justifying interventions on grounds of promoting competition or facilitating innovation.

This essay and the chapters in this book, approach this critical set of problems from an economic perspective, relying on the tools of microeconomics, quantitative analysis, and comparative institutional analysis to explore and begin to provide answers to the myriad challenges facing policymakers. The strength of this analysis – often described as the New Institutional Economic approach – is in its recognition that understanding economic performance requires not only economic modeling of narrow behavior, but also an understanding of that behavior in its legal, economic, social, and political institutional context.

Read the full paper here.

DOJ’s top antitrust enforcer Christine Varney had hardly gotten settled in her office before she repudiated the existing DOJ guidelines on policing single-firm conduct. In the spirit of Rahm Emanuel’s famous “never let a serious crisis go to waste” directive, Ms. Varney invoked the current economic crisis as grounds for her decision to throw out the product of more than a year’s worth of hearings (from all sides).

Read the full piece here.

A big chunk of the fraudulent advertising (diet, exercise, work-at-home, credit repair) prosecuted by the FTC involves a testimonial advertisement that mentions a number, e.g., “I lost 74 pounds wearing slimming insoles.” Some consumers do not seem to understand that the results for the endorsers may not be typical, despite the disclaimer required by the FTC, “results not typical.”

Read the full piece here. 

In light of the recent political focus on healthcare, several Congressional bills propose to single out a class of contracts between pharmaceutical companies for closer antitrust scrutiny.  Oftentimes, a pharmaceutical company will engineer a functionally identical substitute to a “brand name” drug with specific appeal to consumers.  This substitute – with the chemical properties of the known drug but a different name – is known as a “generic drug,” or simply a “generic.”  In an attempt to preserve the legal monopoly a patented brand-name enjoys, the branded drug’s producer will sometimes offer the generic’s producer a payment to delay entry into the market for a fixed amount of time.  Known as a “reverse payment settlement” – or colloquially as “pay for delay” – these agreements are at the intersection of contemporary fears and debates about healthcare and a debate as old as the law of competition itself.

Read the full piece here.