Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 1634 Publications in Antitrust
TOTM The DOJ will not challenge Whirlpool’s (much-blogged-about) proposed acquisition of Maytag (HT: WSJ Law Blog). This Reuters blurb suggests that antitrust experts believe the decision . . .
The DOJ will not challenge Whirlpool’s (much-blogged-about) proposed acquisition of Maytag (HT: WSJ Law Blog). This Reuters blurb suggests that antitrust experts believe the decision “is a key test of the Justice Department’s new antitrust chief and could provide a glimpse of how tough he will be in reviewing mergers” (HT: Antitrust Review).
Read the full piece here.
TOTM David Zaring, guest blogging at Concurring Opinions, has some thoughts on the sunsetting of the ABA’s consent decree this June. David asked for my thoughts . . .
David Zaring, guest blogging at Concurring Opinions, has some thoughts on the sunsetting of the ABA’s consent decree this June. David asked for my thoughts on what this will mean for the market for legal education (also, I am quite flattered that Zaring describes me as a “prominent and businessey professor blogger,” but, I am a sucker for puffery) in exchange for the right to cross-post here at TOTM. My short answer to his question: probably not much.
TOTM Sports Law Blog’s Michael McCann updates our recent discussion (me: here and here; and Professor McCann here) of the Harlem Ambassadors’ complaint to the FTC . . .
Sports Law Blog’s Michael McCann updates our recent discussion (me: here and here; and Professor McCann here) of the Harlem Ambassadors’ complaint to the FTC regarding the Globetrotters’ use of exclusivity windows in sports arena leases. In response to our debate, the Harlem Ambassadors’ founder and president Dale Moss emailed us some very interesting comments.
TOTM Professor McCann responds to my earlier post about the Globetrotters use of exclusive contracts, and more generally, erroneously inferring monopoly power from the observation of . . .
Professor McCann responds to my earlier post about the Globetrotters use of exclusive contracts, and more generally, erroneously inferring monopoly power from the observation of a single firm winning the competition for exclusives…
TOTM Microsoft, AT&T, Standard Oil, and …. the Globetrotters? The Globetrotters just might join this list of well known antitrust defendants. The Harlem Ambassadors, a rival . . .
Microsoft, AT&T, Standard Oil, and …. the Globetrotters? The Globetrotters just might join this list of well known antitrust defendants. The Harlem Ambassadors, a rival exhibition basketball squad, have filed a complaint with the FTC concerning the Globetrotters’ use of “exclusivity windows” in leases with local arenas, which effectively prevent competitors from playing in the same arena around the same time as the Globetrotters. CNN Money has the story here.
TOTM Another 8-0 antitrust decision from SCOTUS. Very interesting. For those of you who have not been following, the Court rejected the longstanding, but almost uniformly . . .
Another 8-0 antitrust decision from SCOTUS. Very interesting. For those of you who have not been following, the Court rejected the longstanding, but almost uniformly criticized, presumption that patents confer market power for the purpose of antitrust analysis. WSJ Law Blog sums up the facts here, concluding with a quote from Steve Sunshine that the trio of cases this term “harmoniz[e] antitrust law presumptions with the economic law and policy that’s been pervasive over the past ten-to-fifteen years.â€? That sounds right.
TOTM While we’re on the topic of antitrust, I thought I would take this opportunity to draw our readers’ attention to a nice series of posts . . .
While we’re on the topic of antitrust, I thought I would take this opportunity to draw our readers’ attention to a nice series of posts over at Antitrust Review. Collectively these posts make up the beginnings of an excellent primer on antitrust economics, told in Hanno Kaiser’s inimitable manner. I don’t agree with all of it, but all of it is thoughtful and well-taken. Well worth a read in your spare time.
TOTM SCOTUS’ Dagher opinion is indeed good news. For those unfamiliar with the case, the Ninth Circuit held that the pricing policy of two joint ventures . . .
SCOTUS’ Dagher opinion is indeed good news. For those unfamiliar with the case, the Ninth Circuit held that the pricing policy of two joint ventures between Shell and Texaco were per se illegal under the Sherman Act. As it stood, the Ninth Circuit’s analysis threatened per se antitrust liability for joint ventures engaging in the unremarkable practice of setting prices for their own practices. Judge Fernandez’ dissent describes the ruling more creatively, arguing that it created a “exotic beast, no less strange than a manticore, roaming the business world.” After SCOTUS’ 8-0 reversal, the exotic beast roams no longer.
TOTM 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 . . .
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).
