When the Justice Department issued its Unilateral Conduct Report last September, it became an instant sensation not primarily because of its content, but because of a strident public critique issued by three FTC Commissioners, including now-Chairman Leibowitz. The three (Harbour, Leibowitz and Rosch, hereinafter “HLR”) accused the Antitrust Division of placing “a thumb on the scales in favor of firms with monopoly . . . power”, and of adopting “drastic changes” comprising “a legal regime [that places] . . . the interests of firms that enjoy monopoly or near monopoly power . . .ahead of the interests of consumers”. Thundering on, HLR savaged the DOJ Report as a “blueprint for radically weakened enforcement of Section 2”, accusing DOJ of “seriously overstat[ing] the level of . . . consensus” on Section 2, and of improperly glorifying economics as “tantamount to the law itself”. Although signed by three of the four Commission members, the Statement was not presented as a position of the FTC, leaving observers to wonder about the internal process that produced the HLR statement and what it reflected about the views of the various Bureaus and other key Commission staff. For FTC/DOJ relations, already rocked by a long series of public disagreements over a string of antitrust issues (reverse-payment Hatch-Waxman settlements, price squeezes), this was a new low, unprecedented in the living memory of the antitrust bar.

Read the full piece here.

A new law in Maryland will take effect on October 1 and will re-instate the Dr. Miles rule for minimum RPM. The Wall Street Journal reports that it is a “move that could lead to lower prices for consumers across the country.” I doubt it. There are quite a few reasons to believe that shifts back to Dr. Miles will not result in lower retail prices, much less higher output (recall that the price effects are less interesting here from a consumer welfare perspective because both cartel theories and pro-competitive theories under which RPM facilitates demand-enhancing promotional services predict upward price movement). For instance, the most likely outcome of the move to per se illegality (whether at the state or federal level through legislation) is that firms contract around the rule with more costly contractual arrangements or vertical integration. To the extent that these alternative arrangements are indeed less efficient, those costs will be passed on to consumers. And of course, the empirical evidence tells us that RPM is generally output-enhancing, not anticompetitive.

Read the full piece here.

My colleague Adam Mossoff is blogging over at the Volokh Conspiracy on his fascinating paper, A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket. Here’s an excerpt from the first post…

Read the full piece here.

That’s from Firefox chief software architect Mike Connor in an interview with PCPro.  Here’s an excerpt suggesting that Mozilla fears that its recent success might lead to antitrust liability in the United States or elsewhere…

Read the full piece here. 

There’s an interesting story in the WSJ about a merger between the HIV-drug businesses at Glaxo and Pfizer.  Some details from the story…

Read the full piece here. 

Randy Picker has posted The Google Book Settlement: A New Orphan Works Monopoly? to SSRN.  I have not been following the antitrust issues related to the settlement as closely as I should be and so I’m really looking forward to reading this.

Read the full piece here.

Josh has a nice post at Truth on the Market on the place of antitrust research and practice within the legal academy. “[C]ontrary to the conventional wisdom I hear from the legal academy, it is an incredibly exciting time to practice, think about, and write about antitrust issues. . . . I suspect that right now is one of the most intellectually active antitrust eras in history.” Josh proposes several hypotheses on the increasingly popularity of antitrust analysis in law schools and within the law-and-economics movement.

Read the full piece here.

When I came onto the job market in 2004, a number of advisers told me that I should not market myself as an “antitrust guy.”  The prevailing view on the job market was that “antitrust was dead.”  This perception was conveyed one way or another in interviews or conversations with folks in the legal academy.  The conventional wisdom was that nothing exciting had happened in the antitrust world since the Reagan era.  On top of that, the story goes, there were few important questions that remained to be answered and not only minor contributions left around the margins.  I ignored the advice at the time thanks to an uncle (and antitrust lawyer) who had turned me on to economics and antitrust in high school.  Truth be told I really didn’t want to study or write about anything else at the time and really wasn’t interested in saying otherwise.

Read the full piece here. 

Answer: not by a long shot.  Not in the Supreme Court.  Not in the empirical economics literature.  But perhaps according to at least one FTC Commissioner in the new FTC annual report…

Read the full piece here.