Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM I’ll be testifying tomorrow at the Federal Trade Commission hearings on Resale Price Maintenance. My panel will focus on rule of reason analysis of RPM . . .
I’ll be testifying tomorrow at the Federal Trade Commission hearings on Resale Price Maintenance. My panel will focus on rule of reason analysis of RPM Post-Leegin. There is a bit of awkwardness testifying about different modes of rule of reason analysis with legislation that would restore the Dr. Miles per se rule pending, but it strikes me as a valuable exercise nonetheless. The early afternoon panel looks very interesting and focuses on the legal and business history of RPM. I do not have a written statement for my prepared remarks, but you can see my slides here.
Read the full piece here.
Popular Media Last week the European Commission slapped Intel Corporation with the largest antitrust fine in the Commission’s history, announcing that the sanctions were necessary to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of a “dominant firm.”
Last week the European Commission slapped Intel Corporation with the largest antitrust fine in the Commission’s history, announcing that the sanctions were necessary to protect consumers from the egregious abuses of a “dominant firm.” What did Intel do to merit this sanction? Whatever its intentions were, its actions leading up to the fine resulted inarguably in lower prices for consumers.
TOTM Reacting to the EU fines imposed on Intel, Geoff raises a nice point about the difficulty of constructing the but-for world in antitrust cases generally, . . .
Reacting to the EU fines imposed on Intel, Geoff raises a nice point about the difficulty of constructing the but-for world in antitrust cases generally, but particularly in cases where prices are falling. This discussion reminded me of Thom’s excellent post responding to the NYT editorial and an AAI working paper and putting theoretical anticompetitive concerns to an empirical test and discussing evidence of falling prices for both Intel and AMD products and increased operating margins for AMD. So how are we to sensibly evaluate the EU decision?
TOTM Our own Josh Wright is quoted in the lead article in today’s Wall Street Journal. Josh opines that the European Union’s record $1.45 billion fine . . .
Our own Josh Wright is quoted in the lead article in today’s Wall Street Journal. Josh opines that the European Union’s record $1.45 billion fine against Intel for lowering its prices on granting “exclusionary” rebates on microprocessors means that FTC action against Intel is “much more likely than it was two weeks ago.” And what about our reinvigorated DOJ, Josh? Aren’t they going to want a piece of this action, lest they look like pansies next to those muscular South Koreans, Europeans, and FTC folk?
TOTM I am curious about something. AMD and Intel have been competing head to head for more than 15 years, at least since AMD released its . . .
I am curious about something. AMD and Intel have been competing head to head for more than 15 years, at least since AMD released its Intel 386 clone in the early 90s. In that time, inarguably, microprocessor prices have plumeted and processing power and other features have increased dramatically (I’m aware that we don’t know what the but-for world would look like, but these effects have been enormous).
TOTM A few quick reactions to the repudiation of the Section 2 Report, and more importantly, what it means for the future of monopolization enforcement… Read . . .
A few quick reactions to the repudiation of the Section 2 Report, and more importantly, what it means for the future of monopolization enforcement…
TOTM Dan Crane has an excellent essay (“Chicago, Post-Chicago and Neo-Chicago“) reviewing Bob Pitofsky’s Overshot the Mark volume. Here’s Dan’s brief abstract… Read the full piece . . .
Dan Crane has an excellent essay (“Chicago, Post-Chicago and Neo-Chicago“) reviewing Bob Pitofsky’s Overshot the Mark volume. Here’s Dan’s brief abstract…
TOTM Expanding on the themes in this post from the TOTM symposium book review of Professor Carrier’s new book on “Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property . . .
Expanding on the themes in this post from the TOTM symposium book review of Professor Carrier’s new book on “Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law” to encourage innovation, I’ve posted an essay co-authored with a very talented former student and research assistant, Aubrey Stuempfle. The essay expands on some of the themes we touched upon in reviewing Carrier’s analysis of standard setting issues, including the potential threat to innovation posed by invoking antitrust remedies to govern the SSO contracting process (whether under Section 2 of the Sherman Act of Section 5 of the FTC Act) in patent holdup cases. The review (along with the others from the symposium on Carrier’s book) will be published in the Alabama Law Review.
TOTM I guess it comes as little surprise that Christine Varney has withdrawn the Section 2 Report. The comments made in the statement withdrawing the Report . . .
I guess it comes as little surprise that Christine Varney has withdrawn the Section 2 Report. The comments made in the statement withdrawing the Report indicate . . . well, that Varney isn’t convinced by reading this blog, among other things. Coming on the heels of our Section 2 Symposium, the news is jarring, although not unexpected. Moreover, as predicted in Howard Marvel’s first post here, Varney is using “recent events” in the economy as a lever…
