Recently, the FTC announced that Howard Shelanksi would be taking charge of the Bureau of Economics on July 1st.  Now comes news that DOJ economist Ken Heyer (and UCLA Bruin!) — longtime Economics Director at the Division — will be moving over to the Commission as Deputy Director for Antitrust.  Leemore Dafny (Northwestern) will also come to the Commission to serve in a newly created role as Deputy Director for Health Care.

From the FTC press release:

“I am very pleased that we will have two such distinguished economists joining the Bureau,” said Howard Shelanski, who was named Director of the Bureau last month and is slated to assume the position on July 1. “Ken’s skill and wealth of experience will be invaluable to our competition mission, and Leemore will bring cutting-edge expertise to our antitrust enforcement in health care markets and more broadly as well. I am also very thankful to Alison Oldale, who Ken replaces, for her expert guidance of the Bureau’s antitrust mission during her year as Deputy on detail from the UK Competition Commission.”

Heyer has held a variety of management positions since joining the DOJ’s Antitrust Division in 1982. Most recently, he was Chief of the Economic Analysis Group’s Competition Policy Section, and from 2001 to 2010 he served as the Division’s Economics Director, the highest position held by a career economist in DOJ’s Antitrust Division. Prior to being promoted to management, he had worked at the Division for many years as a staff economist. In 1999 Heyer received the Antitrust Division’s first William F. Baxter Award for outstanding contributions in the area of economic analysis. Heyer holds a Ph.D. in Economics from U.C.L.A., and a B.A. from Queens College, CUNY.

Dafny is an Associate Professor of Management and Strategy, and the Herman Smith Research Professor in Hospital and Health Services at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, where she has served on the faculty since 2002. She is a microeconomist whose research focuses on competition in healthcare markets. Her work has appeared in the American Economic Review, the Journal of Law and Economics, and the New England Journal of Medicine. Dafny graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College and earned her Ph.D. in Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. From 1995-1997, she worked as a consultant with McKinsey & Company in Washington, DC. She is a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Faculty Associate of the Institute for Policy Research, and a Faculty Affiliate of the Center for the Study of Industrial Organization at Northwestern.

Filed under: antitrust, economics, federal trade commission, health care

In light of yesterday’s abysmal jobs report, yesterday’s Wall Street Journal op-ed by Stanford economist John B. Taylor (Rules for America’s Road to Recovery) is a must-read.  Taylor begins by identifying what he believes is the key hindrance to economic recovery in the U.S.:

In my view, unpredictable economic policy—massive fiscal “stimulus” and ballooning debt, the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing with multiyear near-zero interest rates, and regulatory uncertainty due to Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial reforms—is the main cause of persistent high unemployment and our feeble recovery from the recession.

A reform strategy built on more predictable, rules-based fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies will help restore economic prosperity.

Taylor goes on (as have I) to exhort policy makers to study F.A. Hayek, who emphasized the importance of clear rules in a free society.  Hayek explained:

Stripped of all technicalities, [the Rule of Law] means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.

Taylor observes that “[r]ules-based policies make the economy work better by providing a predictable policy framework within which consumers and businesses make decisions.”  But that’s not all: “they also protect freedom.”  Thus, “Hayek understood that a rules-based system has a dual purpose—freedom and prosperity.”

We are in a period of unprecedented regulatory uncertainty.  Consider Dodd-Frank.  That statute calls for 398 rulemakings by federal agencies.  Law firm Davis Polk reports that as of June 1, 2012, 221 rulemaking deadlines have expired.  Of those 221 passed deadlines, 73 (33%) have been met with finalized rules, and 148 (67%) have been missed.  The uncertainty, it seems, is far from over.

Taylor’s Hayek-inspired counsel mirrors that offered by President Reagan’s economic team at the beginning of his presidency, a time of economic malaise similar to that we’re currently experiencing.  In a 1980 memo reprinted in last weekend’s Wall Street Journal, Reagan’s advisers offered the following advice:

…The need for a long-term point of view is essential to allow for the time, the coherence, and the predictability so necessary for success. This long-term view is as important for day-to-day problem solving as for the making of large policy decisions. Most decisions in government are made in the process of responding to problems of the moment. The danger is that this daily fire fighting can lead the policy-maker farther and farther from his goals. A clear sense of guiding strategy makes it possible to move in the desired direction in the unending process of contending with issues of the day. Many failures of government can be traced to an attempt to solve problems piecemeal. The resulting patchwork of ad hoc solutions often makes such fundamental goals as military strength, price stability, and economic growth more difficult to achieve. …

Consistency in policy is critical to effectiveness. Individuals and business enterprises plan on a long-range basis. They need to have an environment in which they can conduct their affairs with confidence. …

With these fundamentals in place, the American people will respond. As the conviction grows that the policies will be sustained in a consistent manner over an extended period, the response will quicken.

If you haven’t done so, read both pieces (Taylor’s op-ed and the Reagan memo) in their entirety.

Filed under: economics, financial regulation, Hayek, politics, regulation

Yale Law Journal has published my article on “The Antitrust/ Consumer Protection Paradox: Two Policies At War With One Another.”  The hat tip to Robert Bork’s classic “Antitrust Paradox” in the title will be apparent to many readers.  The primary purpose of the article is to identify an emerging and serious conflict between antitrust and consumer protection law arising out of a sharp divergence in the economic approaches embedded within antitrust law with its deep attachment to rational choice economics on the one hand, and the new behavioral economics approach of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  This intellectual rift brings with it serious – and detrimental – consumer welfare consequences.  After identifying the causes and consequences of that emerging rift, I explore the economic, legal, and political forces supporting the rift.

Here is the abstract:

The potential complementarities between antitrust and consumer protection law— collectively, “consumer law”—are well known. The rise of the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) portends a deep rift in the intellectual infrastructure of consumer law that threatens the consumer-welfare oriented development of both bodies of law. This Feature describes the emerging paradox that rift has created: a body of consumer law at war with itself. The CFPB’s behavioral approach to consumer protection rejects revealed preference— the core economic link between consumer choice and economic welfare and the fundamental building block of the rational choice approach underlying antitrust law. This Feature analyzes the economic, legal, and political institutions underlying the potential rise of an incoherent consumer law and concludes that, unfortunately, there are several reasons to believe the intellectual rift shaping the development of antitrust and consumer protection will continue for some time.

Go read the whole thing.

Filed under: antitrust, behavioral economics, bundled discounts, consumer financial protection bureau, consumer protection, economics, federal trade commission

Judge Posner’s decision to appoint a expert in the patent dispute before him in the Seventh Circuit between Apple and Motorola has received some attention.  ABA Journal

Though Posner is an appeals judge with the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he likes to volunteer for trials, the Chicago Tribune reports. In a speech at the 7th Circuit Bar Association on Monday, Posner said the court-appointed experts could explain unclear scientific terms to jurors in the case.

“The idea of expert witness who are not beholden to the parties who can provide information to judges and juries on technical issues, I think is a terrific opportunity worth exploring,” Posner said.

In a March 10 court order (PDF), Posner endorsed another idea—a special blue-ribbon jury—to help decipher difficult patent claims in the case, the Patent Lawyer Blog has reported. Posner told lawyers he wanted the claim constructions to be “in ordinary English intelligible to persons having no scientific or technical background” since lay jurors would be deciding the case.

“There is no point in giving jurors stuff they won’t understand,” he wrote. “The jury (actual juries) will not consist of patent lawyers and computer scientists or engineers unless the parties stipulate to a ‘blue ribbon’ jury; I would welcome their doing so but am not optimistic.”

This is not a surprise.  Judge Posner has long advocated the use of court-appointed experts in his writing.  I suspect this move — a judge appointing an expert for the purpose of claim construction in a patent case — is not too unusual, but is receiving quite a bit of attention both because it is Judge Posner and because it is a high profile patent case.  John Wiley (my antitrust law professor) has an excellent article on the use of court appointed experts and other strategies for “taming scary patent cases.”

But this got me thinking about how relatively rare court appointment in antitrust cases is.  There are a handful of of anecdotal examples to be sure.  They are very familiar in the antitrust community — Alfred Kahn in New York v. Kraft General Foods, Carl Kaysen as law clerk in United Shoe Machinery — in part because of how rare a phenomenon it is.   A 2006 ABA Task Force memo discusses the pros and cons a bit, but does not reach a conclusion.  Moreover, most of the cons are generally costs of using court appointed experts: identifying a witness both parties agree to might be difficult, witnesses might not be “true neutrals,” judges might give too much deference to the opinion of the expert.  Tad Lipsky analyzes the potential for court appointed experts and other possible solutions to the increasing complexity of economic testimony in antitrust cases here.  Yet, if I’m right that this happens much more often in patent cases than it does in antitrust cases — another area of law relying upon outside disciplines (whether a technological field or economics and statistics) — it raises an interesting question as to why?  I admit I might be wrong about the empirical premise.  But it is certainly the case that court appointment is very rare in antitrust cases.

Here are a few hypotheses to explain the higher judicial demand for outside expertise in patent cases:

• Appeal and reversal rates are higher in patent claim construction cases and reversal-averse judges want the help.
• Judges — rightly or wrongly — have greater confidence in their ability to understand the underlying economics in a complex antitrust case than in their ability to tangle in a “hard science” discipline — is it more embarrassing to “ask for directions” in an antitrust case?
• Closer substitutes are available for economic training for judges (e.g. the LEC Economic Institute) than for the hard science disciplines involved in patent cases
• Other Institutional reasons: does Daubert work differently in antitrust cases than patent cases?

I’m sure there are others.  But it seems to be a potentially interesting puzzle that I’ve been thinking about for awhile.  I know we’ve got some experienced antitrust litigators and consulting economists reading.  I’d be very interested in hearing thoughts on what might explain the judicial reluctance — relative to patent cases, assume I’m right about that (and I think I am) — to appoint their own experts.

Filed under: antitrust, economics

From Competition Policy International (via The Blog of Legal Times):

Matt Reilly, former Assistant Director of the Federal Trade Commission, is joining Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Reilly will partner the firm’s Antitrust Practice and be based in its D.C. office. His move comes after 13 years at the FTC, where he was the lead litigator in high-profile cases like the agency’s challenge to the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger. From 2007, Reilly served as head of the Mergers IV decision.

Congratulations to Matt — formerly head of Mergers IV — and to Simpson Thacher.

Filed under: antitrust, federal trade commission, mergers & acquisitions

An interesting new joint venture between Oxford University Press, Ariel Ezrachi, and Bill Kovacic (GW).  Sounds like a fantastic idea and with top notch management and might be of interest to many of our readers.

The Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 

Call for Papers – The Journal of Antitrust Enforcement (OUP) Oxford University Press is delighted to announce the launch of a new competition law journal dedicated to antitrust enforcement. The Journal of Antitrust Enforcement forms a joint collaboration between OUP, the Oxford University Centre for Competition Law and Policy and the George Washington University Competition Law Center.

The Journal of Antitrust Enforcement will provide a platform for cutting edge scholarship relating to public and private competition law enforcement, both at the international and domestic levels.

The journal covers a wide range of enforcement related topics, including: public and private competition law enforcement, cooperation between competition agencies, the promotion of worldwide competition law enforcement, optimal design of enforcement policies, performance measurement, empirical analysis of enforcement policies, combination of functions in the mandate of the competition agency, competition agency governance, procedural fairness, competition enforcement and human rights, the role of the judiciary in competition enforcement, leniency, cartel prosecution, effective merger enforcement and the regulation of sectors.

Submission of papers: Original articles that advance the field are published following a peer and editorial review process. The editors welcome submission of papers on all subjects related to antitrust enforcement. Papers should range from 8,000 to 15,000 words (including footnotes) and should be prefaced by an abstract of less than 200 words.

General inquiries may be directed to the editors: Ariel Ezrachi at the Oxford CCLP or William Kovacic at George Washington University. Submission, by email, should be directed to the Managing Editor, Hugh Hollman.

Further information about the journal may be found online: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/antitrust/

Filed under: antitrust, legal scholarship, scholarship

Apple has filed its response to the DOJ Complaint in the e-books case.  Here is the first paragraph of the Answer:

The Government’s Complaint against Apple is fundamentally flawed as a matter of fact and law. Apple has not “conspired” with anyone, was not aware of any alleged “conspiracy” by others, and never “fixed prices.” Apple individually negotiated bilateral agreements with book publishers that allowed it to enter and compete in a new market segment – eBooks. The iBookstore offered its customers a new outstanding, innovative eBook reading experience, an expansion of categories and titles of eBooks, and competitive prices.

And the last paragraph of the Answer’s introduction:

The Supreme Court has made clear that the antitrust laws are not a vehicle for Government intervention in the economy to impose its view of the “best” competitive outcome, or the “optimal” means of competition, but rather to address anticompetitive conduct. Apple’s entry into eBook distribution is classic procompetitive conduct, and for Apple to be subject to hindsight legal attack for a business strategy well-recognized as perfectly proper sends the wrong message to the market, and will discourage competitive entry and innovation and harm consumers.

A theme that runs throughout the Answer is that the “pre-Apple” world of e-books was characterized by little or no competition and that the agency agreements were necessary for its entry, which in turn has resulted in a dramatic increase in output.  The Answer is available here.  While commentary has focused primarily upon the important question of the competitive effects of the move to the agency model, including Geoff’s post here, my hunch is that if the case is litigated its legacy will be as an “agreement” case rather than what it contributes to rule of reason analysis.  In other words, if Apple gets to the rule of reason, the DOJ (like most plaintiffs in rule of reason cases) are likely to lose — especially in light of at least preliminary evidence of dramatic increases in output.  The critical question — I suspect — will be about proof of an actual naked price fixing agreement among publishers and Apple, and as a legal matter, what evidence is sufficient to establish that agreement for the purposes of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Complaint sets forth the evidence the DOJ purports to have on this score.  But my hunch — and it is no more than that — is that this portion of the case will prove more important than any battle between economic experts on the relevant competitive effects.

Filed under: antitrust, business, cartels, contracts, doj, e-books, economics, error costs, law and economics, litigation, MFNs, monopolization, resale price maintenance, settlements, technology, vertical restraints Tagged: agency model, Amazon, antitrust, Apple, doj, e-books, iBookstore, major publishers, MFN, most favored nations clause, per se, price-fixing, publishing industry, Rule of reason, vertical restraints

Call for Papers

AALS Section on Insurance Law

“Insurance and Consumer Protection”

2013 AALS Annual Meeting
January 4-7, 2013
New Orleans, Louisiana

The AALS Section on Insurance Law will hold a program on Insurance and Consumer Protection during the AALS 2013 Annual Meeting in New Orleans. The program is scheduled for Sunday, January 6, 2013, from 10:30 AM to 12:15 PM. The program will feature a panel of leading research on consumer protection and insurance markets. Panelists scheduled to participate include: Shawn Cole (Harvard Business School), Kyle Logue (University of Michigan Law School), and Lauren Willis (Loyola Law School Los Angeles). We are looking to add one additional panelist through this Call for Papers.

Submissions: To be considered, a draft paper or proposal must be submitted by email to Joshua C. Teitelbaum, Program Chair, at [email protected]. A proposal must be comprehensive enough to allow for a meaningful evaluation of the proposed paper. Submissions must be in PDF format.

Deadline: The deadline for submissions is Tuesday, September 4, 2012. Decisions will be announced by Friday, September 28, 2012.

Eligibility: Full-time faculty members of AALS member law schools are eligible to submit. Faculty at fee-paid law schools; foreign, visiting and adjunct faculty members; graduate students; fellows; and non-law school faculty are not eligible to submit. Papers may already be accepted for publication, provided that the paper will not be published before the AALS meeting.

Expenses: The panelist selected through this Call for Papers will be responsible for paying his or her own annual meeting registration fee and travel expenses.

Inquiries: Inquiries about this Call for Papers may be submitted to Joshua C. Teitelbaum, Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected], (202) 661-6589.

Filed under: consumer protection

Last week the New York Times ran an article, “Building the Next Facebook a Tough Task in Europe“, by Eric Pfanner, discussing the lack of major high tech innovation in Europe.  Eric Pfanner discusses the importance of such investment, and then speculates on the reason for the lack of such innovation.  The ultimate conclusion is that there is a lack of venture capital in Europe for various cultural and historical reasons.  This explanation of course makes no sense.  Capital is geographically mobile and if European tech start ups were a profitable investment that Europeans were afraid to bankroll, American investors would be on the next plane.

Here is a better explanation.  In the name of “privacy,” the EU greatly restricts the use of consumer online  information.  Josh Lerner has a recent paper, “The Impact of Privacy Policy Changes on Venture Capital Investment in Online Advertising Companies” (based in part on the work of Avi Goldfarb and Catherine E. Tucker, “Privacy Regulation and Online Advertising“) finding that this restriction on the use of information is a large part of the explanation for the lack of tech investment in Europe.  Tom Lenard and I have written extensively about the costs of privacy regulation (for example, here) and this is just another example of these costs, although the costs are much greater in Europe than they are here (so far.)

Filed under: advertising, consumer protection, intellectual property, privacy, regulation, technology