To almost no one’s surprise, the Court ruled today (unanimously) in Texaco v Dagher that a pricing agreement between Shell and Texaco which was part of a lawful joint venure is not per se illegal under the Sherman Act. See this Reuter’s story here (HT: Bill).

Read the full piece here.

The NCAA is no stranger to defending antitrust suits. Remember Maurice Clarett? How about the NIT? Tom Farrey of ESPN the Magazine brought my attention to a new and very interesting antitrust suit filed last week in Los Angeles on the theory that the NCAA has illegally conspired to prohibit member colleges from offering athletic scholarships covering the “full cost” of attendance. Apparently, the NCAA fixes a standard scholarship package, called “grant-in-aid,” which is approximately $2,500 less than the official cost of attendance.

Read the full piece here.

David Fischer at Antitrust Review posts an excerpt from Information Resources, Inc.’s (IRI) press release issued to explain the recent settlement of their ten year long litigation against VNU (A.C. Nielsen, IMS Health, and Dun and Bradstreet). IRI’s claims were based on an “above cost” bundling theory that Thom has discussed in detail here. In that post, Thom expressed optimism (like me) about Justice Alito’s influence on the Supreme Court’s antitrust jurisprudence in large part because of his sensible dissent in LePage’s. It looks like we do not have to wait long to for evidence of that influence.

Read the full piece here.

In an op-ed published in Saturday’s W$J (slightly updated version available here for free), Prof. David Bernstein drew attention to the American Bar Association’s proposed revision to its law school accreditation standards concerning student and faculty racial diversity. Bernstein criticized the ABA proposal for, in essence, calling on law schools to ignore constitutional and statutory provisions governing the use of racial preferences in admissions and hiring. Indeed, the revision’s interpretive guidelines (which apparently carry the same weight as the standards themselves) state that…

Read the full piece here.

Warren Grimes of the American Antitrust Institute (and Southwestern Law School) defends the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s recent Microsoft decision holding that Microsoft abused its dominant position by bundling Instant Messenger and Windows Media Player technologies to its operating system, and its order that Microsoft must sell unbundled versions. Grimes central point is that not we should expect such divergent views in an antitrust environment of “world federalism,” but on that the KFTC was in good company in viewing Microsoft’s bundling practices as anticompetitive.

Read the full piece here. 

It’s called Antitrust Review. It’s the result of a merger between the antitrust division of Law & Society Blog and (Anti-)Trust Me, both original members of our ultra-exclusive blogroll. Here’s what Hanno Kaiser, one of the blog’s founders, and a friend and former colleague of mine, says about the blog…

Read the full piece here. 

Thom recently posted about Judge Alito’s comments on the recent Lepage’s decision involving bundled discounts offered to retailers. There is presently much debate among antitrust scholars regarding the proper treatment of “above-cost” price cuts, such as the bundled discounts in Lepage’s. The anticompetitive theory in these cases is not that discounts mask what is effectively “predatory pricing.” Rather, the theory is that the payments will deprive rivals from achieving minimum efficient scale for a period of time long enough to prohibit meaningful competition.

Read the full piece here.

Christine blogs about the Whirlpool-Maytag merger and its antitrust problems. Law Blog has the story, as well. Both mention the American Antitrust Institute which opposes (vehemently) the merger.

Read the full piece here. 

In yesterday’s New York Times Magazine, an anonymous reader posed the following question to The Ethicist…

Read the full piece here.