Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM William Kolasky (Wilmer Hale, and one of the frontrunners for the DOJ AG spot according to the rumormill) has an interesting piece in the Antitrust . . .
William Kolasky (Wilmer Hale, and one of the frontrunners for the DOJ AG spot according to the rumormill) has an interesting piece in the Antitrust Source on the DOJ Section 2 Report arguing that while…
Read the full piece here.
TOTM From the WSJ comes an editorial from Martin Neal Baily and Matthew Slaughter describe a forthcoming report from the Private Equity Council making the link . . .
From the WSJ comes an editorial from Martin Neal Baily and Matthew Slaughter describe a forthcoming report from the Private Equity Council making the link between product market competition and productivity…
TOTM “Now for the evidence,” said the King. “And then the sentence.” “No!” said the Queen. “First the sentence, and then the evidence.” So goes a . . .
“Now for the evidence,” said the King. “And then the sentence.” “No!” said the Queen. “First the sentence, and then the evidence.”
So goes a famous passage of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. And so begins Whole Foods’ new lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission.
TOTM Despite rumors, slogans, and “new” conventional wisdom to the contrary (See, e.g. here, here and the Obama campaign promise to “reinvigorate merger enforcement), it is . . .
Despite rumors, slogans, and “new” conventional wisdom to the contrary (See, e.g. here, here and the Obama campaign promise to “reinvigorate merger enforcement), it is apparently not the case that the current DOJ is not interested in enforcing the antitrust laws. Perhaps it never was. This interesting interview (HT: Danny Sokol) suggests that the DOJ pressured Google and Yahoo to abandon their deal with a threat to file in federal court to enjoin the transaction.
TOTM Being a “glass is half-full” type of guy, I figured there was no way the D.C. Circuit’s decision on Whole Foods’ petition for rehearing en . . .
Being a “glass is half-full” type of guy, I figured there was no way the D.C. Circuit’s decision on Whole Foods’ petition for rehearing en banc could turn out poorly: Either the court would grant the motion and correct the panel’s mistakes, or the court would deny the motion, setting up an attractive opportunity for the Supreme Court, which hasn’t decided a significant merger case since 1974 and badly needs to update its doctrine (see, e.g., Brown Shoe, upon which the D.C. Circuit heavily relied in Whole Foods).
TOTM As noted, the FTC has exercised its right under 15 USC 56(a)(3) to petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the . . .
As noted, the FTC has exercised its right under 15 USC 56(a)(3) to petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the D.C. Circuit in its FTC v. Rambus. The FTC press release is here. The petition is here. The questions presented, as framed by the Commission are…
TOTM Price discrimination involves a firm taking advantage of different elasticities of demand for the same goods by charging different prices relative to marginal cost. Price . . .
Price discrimination involves a firm taking advantage of different elasticities of demand for the same goods by charging different prices relative to marginal cost. Price discrimination is ubiquitous in our economy but remains a four letter word in policy and regulation circles. We observe price discrimination in all sorts of product markets, from small and large firms, and in marketing strategies from brick and mortar to Web 2.0. Its economic definition is relatively straightforward and it is a concept, unlike the complex models and explanations for some business practices in the modern economics literature, that is intuitive for everyday consumers. Airlines charge reduced fares for children or require Saturday stayovers in order to exclude business purchasers. We see this type of price discrimination every day in grocery stores, gas stations, movie theaters, online retail websites, and bookstores. It also exists in markets with which every day consumers might be less familiar, e.g. the tying of ink and printers.
TOTM The press release is here. The petition is here. The questions presented, as framed by the Commission are: 1. Whether deceptive conduct that significantly contributes . . .
The press release is here. The petition is here. The questions presented, as framed by the Commission are:
1. Whether deceptive conduct that significantly contributes to a defendant’s acquisition of monopoly power violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
2. Whether deceptive conduct that distorts the competitive process in a market, with the effect of avoiding the imposition of pricing constraints that would otherwise exist because of that process, is anticompetitive under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
TOTM You may recall we’ve been blogging quite a bit about the FTC and DOJ scuffle over Section 2 (See here and here). On Thursday, December . . .
You may recall we’ve been blogging quite a bit about the FTC and DOJ scuffle over Section 2 (See here and here). On Thursday, December 11th, the ABA Antitrust Division is sponsoring a Teleseminar that will feature my former FTC colleague Ken Glazer (Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission), Bill Kolasky (WilmerHale, and rumored candidate for AG job), and James J. O’Connell, Jr. (Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice). Jennifer Driscoll (Mayer Brown) will be moderating.
