Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 169 Results in Exclusionary Conduct
TOTM I’ve mentioned previously that my colleague Lloyd Cohen and I are editing a volume for Edward Elgar Publishing on Pioneers in Law and Economics. Look . . .
I’ve mentioned previously that my colleague Lloyd Cohen and I are editing a volume for Edward Elgar Publishing on Pioneers in Law and Economics. Look for details in this space soon on a full list of contributing authors and subjects as well as where to buy the book! One of the perks of co-editing a volume like this was that I was able to assign myself the chapter on my dissertation advisor and co-author Benjamin Klein.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM I promised that I would write about why I think that Professor Elhauge’s claim in his new working paper, “Loyalty Discounts and Naked Exclusion,” that . . .
I promised that I would write about why I think that Professor Elhauge’s claim in his new working paper, “Loyalty Discounts and Naked Exclusion,” that he has proven that loyalty discounts generally involve anticompetitive effects is mistaken. Let me begin by saying that this is a very provocative claim from a very serious antitrust analyst and deserves careful attention. Loyalty discounts are an important and highly controversial issue in antitrust at the moment and so economic analysis that enlightens us to their effects in the marketplace should be applauded. I should also note, as I made clear in the first post, that I admire Elhauge’s work and have a great deal of respect for him. Obviously, with that many caveats, you know what is coming next. I strongly disagree that Elhauge’s economic analysis lives up to his claims.
TOTM Josh had a characteristically thoughtful post last week on safe harbors for loyalty and bundled discounts. I didn’t comment on the post, with which I . . .
Josh had a characteristically thoughtful post last week on safe harbors for loyalty and bundled discounts. I didn’t comment on the post, with which I generally agree, because I was busy writing an amicus brief (also signed by Dan Crane, Richard Epstein, Tom Morgan, and Danny Sokol) in an attempt to preserve a different safe harbor for bundled discounts. That’s the safe harbor created by the Ninth Circuit’s recent PeaceHealth decision (discussed here). PeaceHealth held that…
TOTM Dennis Carlton and Michael Waldman have posted an insightful DOJ working paper on antitrust safe harbors for unilateral conduct involving quantity discounts and bundling. The . . .
Dennis Carlton and Michael Waldman have posted an insightful DOJ working paper on antitrust safe harbors for unilateral conduct involving quantity discounts and bundling. The discussion is very timely in light of the Microsoft CFI decision, AMC Report, Section 2 Hearings, and various monopolization cases in the United States, EU, and other antitrust jurisdictions. The Carlton & Waldman paper is short, very accessible, and makes several very important points about the benefits of safe harbors to guide antitrust policy in this area generally and some weaknesses in the proposed AMC approach to bundling. Anybody interested in single firm conduct issues in antitrust should read this paper.
Scholarship Abstract In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons the Supreme Court held that the predatory pricing standard adopted in Brooke Group also applies to predatory bidding claims, because . . .
In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons the Supreme Court held that the predatory pricing standard adopted in Brooke Group also applies to predatory bidding claims, because the two types of predation are “analytically similar”. I argue that predatory bidding is likely to be more harmful to consumer welfare than is predatory pricing. Successful input market predation may lead to a “dual market power” outcome in which the firm has market power in both the input and the output market. In spite of the analytical distinction, consideration of error costs leads me to conclude that Brooke Group remains the best standard to apply to predatory bidding claims.
TOTM Danny Sokol has collected picks from antitrust specialists around the globe. There were plenty of excellent articles and books to pick from but I ultimately . . .
Danny Sokol has collected picks from antitrust specialists around the globe. There were plenty of excellent articles and books to pick from but I ultimately selected this article from Keith Hylton and Fei Deng and this book on the Microsoft Case from Bill Page and John Lopatka. You can see the rest of the picks here.
TOTM I highly recommend co-blogger Thom’s paper (discussed in this post) for those interested in the current Section 2 debate over the appropriate standard for exclusionary . . .
I highly recommend co-blogger Thom’s paper (discussed in this post) for those interested in the current Section 2 debate over the appropriate standard for exclusionary conduct. While I tend to fall into the camp that views unilateral firm conduct as too diverse for a “holy grail” test to make sense, and therefore support different tests for different types of conduct, Thom’s paper does an excellent job of summarizing these tests and working through the potential implications of the Supreme Court’s Weyerhaeuser decision for each of them.
TOTM I’ve just posted my latest antitrust article, Weyerhaeuser and the Search for Antitrust’s Holy Grail, to SSRN. Here’s the abstract… Read the full piece here.
I’ve just posted my latest antitrust article, Weyerhaeuser and the Search for Antitrust’s Holy Grail, to SSRN. Here’s the abstract…
TOTM A pair of interesting antitrust appellate decisions have been released over the past few days involving single firm conduct and Section 2: Cascade Health Solutions . . .
A pair of interesting antitrust appellate decisions have been released over the past few days involving single firm conduct and Section 2: Cascade Health Solutions v. PeaceHealth (9th Cir.) and Broadcom v. Qualcomm (3rd Cir.).
